&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-22/169 | September 2022 | www.epa.aov/research
Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report
Office of Research and Development
hnical Support Coord ination Di vision
Technical Support Coordination Division (TSCD)
Center for Environmental Solutions ant:
Office of Research and Development
Emergency Response (CESER)
(ORD)
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-22/169
September 2022
Fiscal Year 2021 Annual
Report
Office of Research and
Development
Technical Support
Coordination Division
by
Battelle Memorial Institute
Columbus, Ohio
and
Technical Support Coordination Division
Cincinnati, Ohio
Contract Number: 68HERC21D0004
Task Order: 68HERC22F0036
EPA Technical Lead: David Gwisdalla
Technical Support Coordination Division (TSCD)
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency
Response (CESER)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice/Disclaimer
This report is intended to inform U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel
and the public of technical support provided through the Technical Support Coordination
Division (TSCD), a division of the Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency
Response (CESER) within the Office of Research and Development (ORD), during Fiscal
Year 2021 (FY 2021).
This document has been reviewed in accordance with EPA policy, subjected to review by
the ORD, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect
the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Foreword
The EPA is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's land, air, and water
resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, the EPA's research program provides data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to
manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and
prevent or reduce future environmental risks.
The CESER within the ORD conducts applied, stakeholder-driven research and provides
responsive technical support to help solve the nation's environmental challenges. The
Center's research focuses on innovative approaches to address environmental challenges
associated with the built environment. We develop technologies and decision-support tools
to help safeguard public water systems and groundwater, guide sustainable materials
management, remediate sites from traditional contamination sources and emerging
environmental stressors, and address potential threats from terrorism and natural
disasters. CESER collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster
technologies that improve the effectiveness and reduce the cost of compliance, while
anticipating emerging problems. We provide technical support to EPA regions and
programs, states, tribal nations, and federal partners, and serve as the interagency liaison
for the EPA in homeland security research and technology. The Center is a leader in
providing scientific solutions to protect human health and the environment.
Gregory Sayles, Ph.D., Director
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development's
(ORD) Technical Support Coordination Division (TSCD) housed in the Center for
Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER) supports the Agency in
addressing challenges at contaminated sites through direct and rapid access to technical
expertise through Superfund Technology Liaisons and five Technical Support Centers
(TSCs). The TSCD actively collaborates with EPA Regions and Program Offices to address
issues that arise at EPA's most complex and high-priority cleanup sites.
These efforts accelerate the use of scientific knowledge and innovative technologies for
practical applications at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
and Brownfield sites. Feedback from the EPA Regional and Program staff also provides
ORD with input to further prioritize research efforts. Sharing the latest state-of-the-
science and integrating technological advances helps to foster success in cleanup of these
sites.
In Fiscal Year 2021 (FY 2021), ORD's TSCD recorded 116 technical support activities,
aiding 78 unique Superfund and RCRA sites and responding to requests from all 10 EPA
Regions. This report highlights the technical support provided by ORD at contaminated
sites in FY 2021.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Table of Contents v
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations viii
Acknowledgments xi
1. Introduction 1
2. Impact of Our Work 4
3. Challenges Addressed 7
3.1 Assessing and Treating Emerging and Persistent Contaminants 9
3.2 Site Assessment Support and Site Characterization Innovations 16
3.3 Remedy Evaluation and Innovations 27
3.4 Preventing Adverse Human Health and Ecological Risk Impacts 43
4. Superfund and Technology Liaison Research Program and Special Research Project
Support 50
5. Technology Transfer 57
6. Conclusions & Contact Information 61
Appendix A. FY 2021 Support Projects 62
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1. The TSCD Offerings 2
Figure 2-1. Count of Project Support Requests by Region 5
Figure 2-2. FY 2021 Support by Category (left, percentage) and by Region (right, count) 6
Figure 3-1. Base-wide Proposed Sampling Locations 11
Figure 3-2. Willow Grove Site Map 12
Figure 3-3. Willow Grove Trend Analysis Figures 14
Figure 3-4. Chemical Structure of PCBs 15
Figure 3-5. Location of Jacksonville Naval Air Station's OU 8 (outlined in red) 17
Figure 3-6. 3PE Results 18
Figure 3-7. Proposed Location of New Extraction Well at the Findett Corp. Superfund Site
21
Figure 3-8. Sampling Team Observing a Soil Core from a Direct Push Sampler 22
Figure 3-9. Direct Push Sample Showing Evidence of Pottery within the Soil at Depth ....23
Figure 3-10. Pottery Chips Containing Lead Found at East Trenton Site 23
Figure 3-11. Area Map Showing the Study Area within Northern Idaho in the Western
United States 24
Figure 3-12. EPA Inspecting a Well-vegetated Historic Landfill in Puerto Rico 28
Figure 3-13. Schematic an ET Cover and Surface and Soil Water Fluxes 29
Figure 3-14. Old Pond Central Area 1987 30
Figure 3-15. Old Pond West End Seepage in 1987 31
Figure 3-16. Cavenham Slurry Wall Construction in 2013 31
Figure 3-17. Cavenham Site Plan 33
Figure 3-18. 2019 Pilot Project Team Onsite 34
Figure 3-19. AEM Survey 2020 36
Figure 3-20. LFGPR Survey 2021 37
Figure 3-21. Groundwater Profiling 2022 37
Figure 3-22. Historical Photograph of Weldon Spring Uranium Processing Facility 38
Figure 3-23. Weldon Spring Disposal Cell circa 2002 39
Figure 3-24. Groundwater Elevation Map for South Landfill for June 2017 41
Figure 3-25. HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix 42
Figure 3-26. Fisher Calo Plume Map 44
Figure 3-27. Fisher Calo Summa Canister VI Sampling Inside 44
Figure 3-28. Fisher Calo Summa Canister VI Sampling Outside 45
Figure 3-29. Fisher Calo Summa Canister VI Subslab Sampling 45
Figure 3-30. Map showing the OUs at Velsicol Chemical Corporation Superfund Site, St.
Louis, Michigan 47
Figure 3-31. Map Showing the L.A. Clarke & Son Superfund Site 49
Figure 4-1. Septic Sensor Test Tank Field Measurements 51
Figure 4-2. Sensor Sampling Tube in Test Cell 52
Figure 4-3. Examples of Hazardous Debris and Spills 52
Figure 4-4. Microsoft Flight Simulator Screenshot 53
Figure 4-5. Black Butte Mine Superfund Site, Oregon - OU 3 Wetlands 54
Figure 4-6. Tundra Swans in the Schlepp Wetlands in Coeur d'Alene River Source: EPA,
Coeur d'Alene Basin Cleanup Factsheet, March 2022 55
Figure 5-1. FY 2021 Technology Transfer Products 57
2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
v
-------
Tables
Table 1-1. Description of the Five Technical Support Centers 1
Table 3-1. Challenges Addressed in FY 2021 7
Table 6-1. Contacts for Obtaining Technical Support Through the TSCs 61
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
v
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
3-D three dimensional
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
AEM aerial electromagnetic
AFB Air Force Base
AFFF aqueous film forming foam
AOC area of concern
BERA baseline ecological risk assessment
BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CASI Commonwealth Atlantic-Spotsylvania, Inc.
CCTE Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CESER Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
CFI Cavenham Forest Industries
CMS Corrective Measures Study
COC contaminant of concern
CPHEA Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment
Cr chromium
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DL detection limit
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DOC demonstration of capability
DOE Department of Energy
DQO data quality objective
DVECC Disease Vector Ecology and Control Center
EAR enhanced aquifer recharge
ECAD Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division
EGLE Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERAF Ecological Risk Assessment Forum
ERASC Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center
ERT Environmental Response Trust
ET evapotranspiration
2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
viii
-------
ETSC Engineering Technical Support Center
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FS Feasibility Study
FY fiscal year
GCRD Groundwater Characterization and Remediation Division
GLTED Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division
gpm gallons per minute
GPR ground penetrating radar
GPS global positioning system
GW groundwater
GWTSC Ground Water Technical Support Center
HEC human equivalent concentration
Hg mercury
HHRA human health risk assessment
HR-ICP-MS high resolution-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IA indoor air
IMWP Interim Measures Work Plan
Inc. Incorporated
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISO International Organization for Standardization
J&E Johnson and Ettinger
KIDP Kingsbury Industrial Park
LCRD Land Contamination Remediation Division
LFGPR low frequency GPR
LGU lower granular unit
LRTD Land Remediation and Technology Division
MASSTC Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center
MeHg methylmercury
mm millimeter
MMB Maple Meadow Brook
MNA monitored natural attenuation
n.d. no date
NAD Naval Ammunition Depot
NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid
NAS Naval Air Station
NASJRB/WG Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove
NCER National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
ND non-detect
NDMA n-nitrosodimethylamine
NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NPL National Priorities List
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OLEM Office of Land and Emergency Management
ORD Office of Research and Development
OU Operable Unit
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Pb lead
PBB polybrominated biphenyl
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE perchloroethylene or tetrachloroethene
PCP pentachlorophenol
PESD Pacific Ecological Systems Division
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFHPA perfluoroheptanoic acid
PFHXS perfluorohexanesulphonic acid
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
PRP potentially responsible party
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RAA Remedial Action Area
RARE Regional Applied Research Effort
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI Remedial Investigation
RPM Regional Project Manager
SCMTSC Site Characterization and Monitoring Technical Support Center
SEMD Superfund and Emergency Management Division
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SHC Sustainable and Healthy Communities
SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment
SOP standard operating procedure
SRB Subsurface Remediation Branch
SS sub-slab
SSTL site specific target level
STL Superfund and Technology Liaison
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
STLR
Superfund and Technology Liaison Research
STSC
Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center
SW
surface water
SWMU
Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE
trichloroethene
JSC
Technical Support Center
TSCD
Technical Support Coordination Division
UGU
upper granular unit
U.S.
United States
USGS
United States Geological Survey
VI
vapor intrusion
VOC
volatile organic compound
VR
virtual reality
WGARS
Willow Grove Air Reserve Station
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Acknowledgments
The TSCD would like to recognize our interdisciplinary team of ORD scientists, engineers,
and contractors for their significant contributions toward solving the complex issues faced
in EPA's environmental cleanup efforts. We would like to extend a special thanks to our
Superfund and Technology Liaisons for providing a vital link to identifying EPA Regional
needs. We truly appreciate our dedicated EPA researchers and scientists who provide their
technical expertise to ensure the clients' needs are met. We are grateful for the
opportunity to deliver effective solutions to the Program Offices and Regions. Thank you
for the patronage and support. We welcome the opportunity to work in a collaborative
manner across many scientific and engineering disciplines to protect human health and
the environment.
This report was prepared by Max Zelenevich (Battelle Memorial Institute). David Gwisdalla
coordinated and provided oversight of report preparation. We appreciate the constructive
reviews provided by the TSC Directors, the Superfund Technology Liaisons, Paul Randall,
Thomas Speth, Andrew Bullard (CDM Smith), and Sara Barbuto (Integral Consulting, Inc.)
and Stella Wang (Integral Consulting Inc.).
Michael Kravitz
Director, Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center
David Gwisdalla
Director, Engineering TSC
Randall Ross
Director, Ground Water TSC
Felicia Barnett
Director, Site Characterization and Monitoring TSC
Dahnish Shams
Director, Superfund Health Risk TSC
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
x
-------
1. Introduction
Sharing the latest state-of-the-science and integrating technological advances helps to
foster success in the cleanup of contaminated sites. This information also helps inform and
improve the decision-making process at Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and Brownfield sites. The United States (U.S.) Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development's (ORD) Technical Support
Coordination Division (TSCD), housed in the Center for Environmental Solutions and
Emergency Response (CESER), supports the Agency in addressing challenges at
contaminated sites through direct and rapid access to technical expertise through their
regionai Superfund Technology Liaisons (STLs) and five Technical Support Centers (TSCs).
Each TSC contributes to the overall TSCD mission based upon their technical focus and
support capabilities as summarized in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Description of the Five Technical Support Centers
The TSCs provide a suite of experts, ready to address challenges encountered at all stages of the assessment and
remediation process.
Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center (ERASC): Provides technical information and
addresses scientific questions related to ecological risk assessments. Also evaluates and publishes
on emerging issues and develops state-of-the science responses for ecological risk assessments.
Engineering Technical Support Center (ETSC): Provides site-specific assistance on engineering
and treatment issues during any phase of a site cleanup. Offers guidance for incorporating
technology-based data needs in studies, designs, and operational phases. Publishes on
characterization and remediation technologies for contaminated soil, sediment, and mine sites.
Ground Water Technical Support Center (GWTSC): Provides support on issues related to
groundwater contamination, cross-media transfer (e.g., movement from the groundwater to surface
water or air), and ecosystem restoration. Publishes on characterization and remediation
technologies for contaminated groundwater.
Site Characterization and Monitoring Technical Support Center (SCMTSC): Provides support
for the use of cutting-edge methods and technologies for identifying the nature and extent of
contamination. Expertise is available from planning to design and for data analysis and
interpretation, including statistical analyses. Publishes on innovative site characterization methods
and tools.
Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center (STSC): Provides scientific technical support
on issues related to human health risk assessments, primarily under CERCLA, including
interpretation of guidance and assessments and evaluation of toxicity values from EPA or other
Agencies, that allow for the development of more accurate quantitative estimates of risk.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
1
-------
A support request is typically made through a regional STL or directly to the TSCD (see
Section 6 for contact information). The STLs who serve as the primary ORD technical
liaisons between each of EPA's regional offices and ORD staff actively collaborate with the
TSCD to address issues that arise at the EPA's most complex and high-priority cleanup
sites. The combined efforts accelerate the use of scientific knowledge and innovative
technologies for practical field applications. The knowledge gained from the long-term
support at many sites allows for responsive and timely engagements, allowing for best
practices to be learned. Feedback from the field on cleanup challenges faced by the
Regions also provides ORD with input to further prioritize research efforts. Figure 1-1
summarizes the TSCD offerings and their connections to applied science and future
research needs.
The TSCD Offerings
The TSCD helps to accelerate cleanup
and advance economic revitalization
by channeling technical expertise on
the latest methods, approaches, and
technologies to contaminated sites
and identifying research needs to
inform the research agenda.
Through the support provided, the
TSCD plays a central role in
technology applications and
demonstrations, resulting in important
lessons learned that drive future
national research needs.
Specifically, the TSCD:
Connects ORD research
to Agency decisions
Applies best practices to
field applications
Serves as a nexus
between the field and
the research agenda
We develop critical connections between ORD scientists and
Agency decision makers to channel technical expertise and
research results to the EPA's operating programs.
We leverage a national network of experts and facilitate
application of the best scientific understanding and practices
to solve real-world problems and reduce risks to public
health and the environment.
We serve as a conduit to ensure ORD is addressing the most
important research gaps and problems the Agency is facing
by providing feedback from field applications to inform the
research agenda.
Figure 1-1. The TSCD Offerings
Fiscal Year 2021 (FY 202:1) continued to bring unique challenges due to the COVID-19
pandemic. EPA made decisions to complete field work on a case-by-case basis. Despite
these challenges, the TSCD continued to support the Regions and Program Offices with
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
scientific expertise and make progress on investigative, state-of-the-science activities
(e.g., modeling, statistical analyses, literature synthesis, guidance documents). Highlights
of the TSCD's work in FY 2021 are presented in this report along with site-specific case
studies demonstrating the breadth and depth of knowledge the five TSCs provide in
support of environmental cleanup and risk assessment.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
3
-------
2. Impact of Our Work
ORD's TSCD assists EPA cleanup professionals with making scientifically defensible
decisions by providing a one-stop shop for the breadth and depth of ORD technical
expertise. The Division actively supports cleanup at Superfund, RCRA, Brownfields, and
other sites by delivering expertise on the latest methods, approaches, and technologies.
Support is typically initially coordinated by the Regional STLs who work directly with
Regional Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and other EPA Regional staff to identify the
specialized expertise needed to address site-specific challenges.
The TSCD typically supports:
¦ EPA Regions (i.e., Superfund RPMs, RCRA Corrective Action project managers,
Brownfields staff, risk assessors, geologists, on-scene coordinators); and
¦ EPA Program Offices (e.g., Office of Land and Emergency Management [OLEM]).
Through the Regions and Program Offices, the Division's TSCs also support state agency
scientists, research universities, and international agencies.
In FY 2021, TSCD recorded 116 technical support activities, with direct assistance to 78
Superfund or RCRA sites located in all ten regions. The greatest number of technical
support activities (also referred to as projects) were provided to Region 7 (30), followed
by Region 2 (23), and Region 9 (12). Support activities spanned 30 states within the
continental U.S., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (see Figure 2-1, next page).
Sites in these states and territories include mining sites, landfills, military operations, and
a variety of industrial operations. The most support was provided to Missouri (20 support
requests), New Jersey (12 support requests), and Massachusetts (9 support requests).
The TSCD also engages in cross-cutting, collaborative research with scientists across the
EPA, including the Superfund Technology Liaison Research (STLR.) program, select
projects of which are highlighted in Section 4 of this report. During FY 2021, there were
16 STLR projects started, on-going, or completed. This includes 11 STLR projects that
were still active and on-going from previous fiscal years (with 1 completed) and 5 new
STLR projects that were started during FY 2021. A full list of support activities is included
in Appendix A.
The TSCD continues to support sites on the EPA Administrator's Emphasis List1 of
Superfund sites that the EPA has targeted for immediate and intense action. This list is
1 EPA 2021. Making Decisions and Making a Difference in Superfund: Administrator's Emphasis List 2017-2021. Available online at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/202Q-ael-summarv-report-compliant.pdf.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
4
-------
dynamic, thus sites are added and removed as appropriate. In FY 2021, support was
provided to one site on this list, Oiin Chemical (Region 1, Massachusetts), which is
highlighted in Section 3 of this report. The TSCD has provided critical support for many
years to this and other sites that have been on previous EPA Administrator's Emphasis
Lists. In FY 2021, the TSCD also supported one Superfund Redevelopment Opportunity
Site2 through the design and implementation of an innovative phytoremediation pilot
study. The site was McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. (Region 9, California) and
remediation supported its large commercial development potential.
-10-
8 Projects
0
12 Projects,
23 ifmiectsf^6iects
8 Projects
9JProjects
HI r-\.
Guam ly/
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
o
* Q 10 \
4
9 Projects
2 j>
cz>-
O
Legend: EPA Regions
1-10 Listed
Technical Support
Requests
Unique Sites
Figure 2-1. Count of Project Support Requests by Region
16
Active STLR
Projects
Figure note: STL = Superfund Technology Liaison; STLR = Superfund Technology Liaison Research.
Multi-region projects are not shown.
The TSCD provided a wide range of technical services in FY 2021 (see Figure 2-2),
primarily related to remedy evaluation and innovation (43 percent of projects); site
assessment support and site characterization innovation (27 percent of projects); and
preventing adverse human health and ecological risk impacts (15 percent of projects).
2 The July 2017 list of Superfund Redevelopment Opportunity Sites is available at Superfund Redevelopment Program I U S.
EPA
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
TSCD supported projects in all 10 EPA Regions and collaborated with other EPA offices to
provide technical expertise and support decision making for a variety of sites, including
Superfund sites and emergency response situations. Support activities covered all phases
of the contaminated-site cleanup process, including activities under Superfund and similar
work at RCRA Corrective Action sites, and consisted of technical support in development
and review of Remedial Investigation (RI) work plans and reports, groundwater modeling
reports, feasibility studies (FSs), treatability studies, remedial designs (RDs), and
remediation system performance, as well as statistical analysis and lab and field support,
Diverse contaminant types were also addressed, with lead (Pb) and other metals being
the most frequent focus, followed by persistent (e.g., trichloroethene [TCE]) and
emerging (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkyi substances [PFAS]) chemicals and dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL).
Support by Category in FY 2021
Support Requests by Region in FY 2021
R10
Multi
Assessing and Treating Emerging and Persistent Contaminants
Characterization and Remediation Innovations at Mining Sites
Preventing Adverse Human Health and Ecological Risk Impacts
Remedy Evaluation and Innovations
Site Assessment Support and Site Characterization Innovations
10 15 20 25
Number of Requests
30
35
Notes:
R Region
Technical support requests were categorized by region
where the site is located, if site-specific, or where technical
support requestor is based. "Multi" refers to technical
support provided to more than one region, or a technical
support request that has broad reach.
Figure 2-2. FY 2021 Support by Category (left, percentage) and by Region (right,
count)
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
I
-------
3. Challenges Addressed
Complexities in site characteristics and contaminant types can lead to challenges in
adequately assessing and remediating contaminated sites, These factors may call for the
use of specialized techniques or innovative technologies during the assessment,
characterization, or remediation of a site. TSCD's approach to responding to a technical
request starts by forming a team of EPA scientists, engineers, and external technical
experts (as needed) with interdisciplinary backgrounds and knowledge to bring effective
solutions to the real-world problems present at a particular site. The team also looks for
opportunities to accelerate the application of research findings and cutting-edge scientific
knowledge into the field to benefit each project.
Examples to illustrate the breadth and depth of technical expertise and support provided
by TSCD in FY 2021 are listed in Table 3-1 and further described in Sections 3.1 to 3.4.
These examples highlight how technical expertise provided by TSCD can be applied to
optimize sampling strategies, increase remedy effectiveness, optimize costs (e.g., through
implementation of passive treatment for mine influenced water), and shorten cleanup
timeframes.
Table 3-1. Challenges Addressed in FY 2021
Section and Challenge Key Projects Highlighted
Supporting Quality Assurance for PFAS Work at Ellsworth
Air Force Base (Region 8)
PFAS Monitoring Support for Willow Grove Superfund
Site (Region 3)
Update on the Benefits of Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
Analyses (not Region specific)
¦ Technical Support for Monitored Natural Attenuation at
Jacksonville Naval Air Station's Superfund Site's OU 8
(Region 4)
» Technical Review of Site Documents and
Recommendations for Location of New Extraction Well at
Findett Corp. Superfund Site (Region 7)
Lead Forensics Analysis for Historic Potteries (Region 2)
Technical Support for the Assessment of Lead Mobility,
Bioaccessibility, and Impacts on Tundra Swan Health in
the Lower Coeur d'Alene River Basin from Bunker Hill
Superfund Site (Region 10)
3.1 Assessing and Treating
Emerging and Persistent
Contaminants
3.2 Site Assessment Support
and Site Characterization
Innovations
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
7
-------
Section and Challenge
3.3 Remedy Evaluation and
Innovations
Key Projects Highlighted
Evapotranspiration Cover Guidance for the Island of
Puerto Rico (Region 2)
Work Plan Review for Barrier Wall Monitoring at
Cavenham Forest Industries (Region 4)
Phytoremediation Plan Development for McCormick &
Baxter Creosoting Co. Superfund Site (Region 9)
Geophysical Support for Olin Chemical Superfund Site
(Region 1)
Evaluation of MNA for Inorganic Contaminants at Weldon
Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits Site (Region 7)
Evaluation of Landfill Cap and Potential for Monitored
Natural Attenuation at Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Site - OU 5- South Landfill Source
Control (Region 7)
Technical Review of the Johnson & Ettinger Model at the
HOVENSA Site (Region 2)
3.4 Preventing Adverse
Human Health and
Ecological Risk Impacts
Fisher-Calo Superfund Site Vapor Intrusion Technical
Support (Region 5)
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Support at the
Velsicol Chemical Corporation Superfund Site (Region 5)
Human Health Toxicological Support for the L.A. Clarke
& Son Superfund Site (Region 3)
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
8
-------
3.1 Assessing and Treating Emerging and Persistent Contaminants
ORD is making strides in assessing, characterizing, and implementing strategies to
address emerging and persistent contaminants such as PFAS. Contaminated-site
practitioners rely on ORD expertise to understand the state-of-the-science and share best
practices for sampling and treating these contaminant types. In FY 2021, the TSCD
supported multiple projects related to PFAS, including two highlighted in this section.
Supporting Quality Assurance for PFAS Work at Ellsworth Air
Force Base (AFB)
Site: Ellsworth AFB
Location: Region 8, South Dakota
Center Support: ETSC
Ellsworth AFB is owned and operated by the U.S. Air Force and is located 6 miles east of
Rapid City, South Dakota. Ellsworth AFB began operating in July 1942 as the Rapid City
Army Air Base, a training facility for B-17 bomber crews that covers about 4,858 acres. A
half-century of military activities resulted in soil, sediment, surface water and
groundwater contamination on the base and on private land beyond its boundaries. The
collective area is now included in the Ellsworth AFB Superfund site. Presently, Ellsworth
AFB hosts the 28th Bomber Wing, which is one of the U.S. Air Force's two operational B-
1B Lancer wings.
As part of ORD's on-going technical support for EPA Region 8, the Region requested ORD's
support in completing the U.S. Air Force's "Ellsworth PFAS RI". PFAS sources on the AFB
are from several different activities, including the use of aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) that contained PFAS compounds as part of fire training and response. The PFAS RI
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) includes a sampling plan to assess nature and
extent of PFAS-contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soils on base as well as
impacts to off-base private drinking water wells (sampling locations can be seen on
Figure 3-1).
ORD's support in FY 2021 included a review of the U.S. Air Force's proposed sampling
locations and methodologies and the analytical procedures outlined in the proposed QAPP,
to ensure the data collected met the specified data quality objectives (DQOs). In the
sampling design lysimeter studies were proposed to characterize soil water content
throughout the soil profile overtime. During ORD's review they highlighted technical
considerations in interpreting lysimeter data and suggested changes to the proposed
sampling design to better characterize PFAS movement through the vadose zone.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
9
-------
ORD also provided an extensive
review of the U.S. Air Force's
contract laboratories for PFAS
analyses. The review focused on
proprietary methods used by the
laboratories for groundwater,
surface water and soil; standard
operating procedures (SOPs) for
testing and analyzing PFAS
compounds and the laboratories
demonstration of capability (DOC).
The SOPs were used to understand
the analytical procedures and will
support the data package review
(for example, checking data to verify retention times for specific analytes, surrogate
recoveries, and whether data met stated DQOs). ORD's input on the SOPs, DOC and QAPP
provided the Region with recommendations, such as requesting additional quality
control/quality assurance samples for validation of laboratory results. ORD's support to
the Region was iterative and included a series of reviews followed by requests for
additional data and information. ORD identified non-standardized analytical methods for
data collected during the RI and observations of background contamination in quality
assurance blanks for PFAS with the proposed laboratories.
ORD's ongoing support into FY 2022 includes guidance in collecting split groundwater
samples for analysis by EPA and contract laboratories for PFAS. The intent is to compare
the non-standardized methods of analysis used by the contract laboratories to EPA
methods, and better understand data quality for these samples.
"ORD's support was invaluable in helping the
Region evaluate the USAF's proposed RI
workplan, especially the contract labs'
capabilities with non-standardized methods.
With ORD's support, the Region has also
gained valuable insight on how to conduct a
review of the contract lab's performance data
related to PFAS compounds. This allows us to
better evaluate future RI plans to ensure they
can meet their data objectives."
Natasha Lohwater, Region 8 RPM, SEMD
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
10
-------
Legend
0
O
0
«B Existing Well
BEflsworth Air Fores Base Boundary
F-AS Sc.« Boundary (To Be Samp lea;
''/A Other PFAS Site Boundary
Ar Field
Building'Structure
Wate'body
Surface Water Drainage
Road
Isopach Thickness of Coarse Sediments (Fect)!
0 to 2 5 to 10 15 to 20
2to5 10 to 15 ¦¦20 to 25
>25
Figure 3
Basewide Proposed Sampling Locations
Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota
Locator Map
Figure 3-1. Base-wide Proposed Sampling Locations
Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota
Source: U.S. Air Force, August 2020
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
11
-------
IPFAS Monitoring Support for Willow Grove Superfund Site
Site: Former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove (NASJRB/WG) and the
Willow Grove Air Reserve Station (WGARS)
Location: Region 3, Pennsylvania
Center Support: SCMTSC
The Former Naval Air
Station Joint Reserve Base
Willow Grove
(NASJRB/WG) and the
Willow Grove Air Reserve
Station (WGARS) cover
1,200 acres and are
located in Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania
(Figure 3-2). In 2005, the
Base Realignment and
Closure Act (BRAC)
directed the closure of
NASJRB/WG. The WGARS
portion of the site was
deactivated in 2007 and
the Air National Guard
became responsible for the
U.S. Air Force's
property. In early 2011,
NASJRB/WG concluded
nearly 70 years of service
and ceased flight
operations.
Areas with potential
contamination on Navy
(i.e., NASJRB/WG)
property include, but are
not limited to, the Privet
Road Compound, Antenna
Field Landfill, Ninth Street
Landfill, the former Fire
Training Area and a fuel
jutfYoHcc
NAVAL Am STATION
r MMiW iwsr (*a»
MlOWOKOVf
I
TARpNI¥ JUtJf T
OK *4 i
** ..
-I Lh
* mm
i- -fl
TITRATiCN
4fl *¦
-------
farm, and a number of hazardous waste storage areas have been identified as potential
areas of where contaminated media may be present.
SCMTSC reviewed and evaluated PFAS analytical results from residential well sampling
data to determine if there were trends to suggest PFAS concentrations were decreasing,
increasing, or stable. SCMTSC addressed questions from the Region on trend analysis and
provided additional sampling recommendations to support future trend analysis of the
data.
SCMTSC worked with the Navy to obtain sample and location data to perform spatial and
trend analysis on both the Navy and Air National Guard groundwater data and supply final
recommendations to the Region on future monitoring data collection and evaluation.
An initial data check identified issues with data submitted, primarily in sampling location
coordinates and associated addresses. SCMTSC worked on resolving data duplication
issues by using geocoding to convert the addresses to correct coordinate locations. This
approach to reconcile inconsistencies was paired with the Navy team's independent effort
to correct the coordinates. Other data issues identified during the initial analysis included
a wide range in detection limits (2 to 3 orders of magnitude), which required further
clarification before the data could be evaluated.
SCMTSC used spatial statistical methods to evaluate PFAS trends using several data sets
provided by the Regional EPA office. After data issues were resolved, spatial plots and
variograms showing spatial relationships between corrected locations were developed. The
purpose of the analysis was to inform further sampling at
Willow Grove, based on identified trends and their spatial
relationships. The data sets used in the analysis were from
three locations in the vicinity of the Horsham Air Guard and
Naval Air Station JRB Willow Grove.
There were no obvious spatial relationships among the trends.
Willow Grove is a site with highly complex hydrological features
which are likely to impact the transport of PFAS in groundwater
over time. In addition, the large number of non-detects (NDs),
as well as the variability in detection limits (DLs) over time,
makes trusting and assessing trends difficult. Additional data
visualizations supported the absence of spatial trends in the
data.
The final report submitted to the Region included an explanation
of statistical methods, data analysis results, and recommendations for future monitoring
data collection. Although the temporal trends failed to show consistent spatial
relationships, trends associated with the magnitude of concentrations were informative
and can be used to plan for further sampling efforts. In general, trends in PFAS
concentrations are more commonly decreasing than increasing over time and space;
however, some increasing trends are observed across the site. Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) data show increasing trends in parts of
the southern areas. Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHPA) data show increasing trends in the
"This effort highlighted
ways we can improve
our data collection
effort and areas where
we need to look further.
It was helpful to fully
understand the
complexities of trend
analysis in this area."
Sarah Kloss, Region 3
RPM,SEMD
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
13
-------
southeastern-most corner of the site, and perfIuorohexanesulphonic acid (PFHXS) and
PFOS data show increasing trends in one of the northeast corners of the site (Figure 3-
3).
SCMTSC recommended focusing additional sampling and/or installation of additional
monitoring wells in areas where increasing trends were observed, or in areas with fewer
existing wells. Also, a three-dimensional spatial analysis should be considered in the
future, as it may provide additional information and clarify spatial relationships in the
trends. These factors highlighted the need for hydrogeological expertise in planning future
sample events and during analysis of the resulting data.
Proportion of
Positive Trends
Significant
o o
O '
Proportion of
Trends Increasing
10
"
00
08
07
06
P-value
O P»01
O 006«P«01
O 0 01 « P < 0 05
O P<001
Slope (ngL per day)
I
-0 1
-0 2
-03
Figure 3-3. Willow Grove Trend Analysis Figures
Source: Neptune and Company, INC, n.d.
Proportion of Trends Increasing by Well Across All Analytes
PFOA/PFOS Decreasing Trends
'SJk
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
14
-------
Update on the Benefits of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)
Congener-specific Analyses
Site: Non-site-specific
Location: Non-region-specific
Center Support: ERASC
In April 2020, the Ecological Risk Assessment
Forum (ERAF) submitted a request to the
ERASC to provide a review of "Memorandum:
Response to Ecological Risk Assessment Forum
Request for Information on the Benefits of PCB
Congener-Specific Analyses" NCEA-C-1315,
ERASC-002F, developed in March 2005.
Approximately 15 years had passed since it
was issued, so a review was needed to 1)
ensure that the memorandum reflects the
latest state of the science, and 2) update the
information as necessary.
One focus area during the review was how to
report the results of PCB analyses (PCB
chemical structure shown in Figure 3-4).
Results may be expressed in terms of PCB
congener-specific, total PCB, and Aroclor
equivalent concentrations. Given analytical
cost considerations and potential overlap in
results from each analysis, the review
considered whether the standard approach
should be to analyze and report results for
all three types. The product of this work, a
document updating the information in the
2005 ERASC publication, is designed to
assist risk assessment practitioners to
choose, in a cost-efficient manner, analyses
that meet the objectives of the assessment.
3' 2* 2 3
5' 6' 6 5
Polychlorinated biphcnyls (PCBs)
Figure 3-4. Chemical Structure of PCBs
Source: EPA, n.d.
"The Update on The Benefits of PCB
Congener-Specific Analyses has been
extremely valuable. It addresses key issues
that have continually arisen regarding the
selection of analytical methods for PCBs
and the appropriate use of the resultant
data. The document is succinct in its
explanations facilitating application of the
recommendations. It serves as another
timely treatise of the issue clearly
addressing much of the confusion that has
arisen in the past."
Bruce Pluta, Region 3 Ecological Risk Assessor,
SEMD
Method 8082A provides quantifications of total PCBs and the representative Aroclors used
in the quantification. Method 1668C reports concentrations of PCBs on a congener-specific
basis, by total PCB, and by homologue totals. In addition, concentrations of the 12 PCBs
designated as toxic by the World Health Organization (WHO) and their total dioxin toxicity
equivalence (TEQ) are reported. At Superfund sites, use of Method 1668C is
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
15
-------
recommended for samples used in a site's risk assessment. It is not a requirement that all
samples be analyzed using Method 1668C, but enough samples need to be analyzed to
adequately perform the risk assessment and characterize the PCB congener distribution at
the site. As the site transitions into site cleanup, site mangers must choose between
Methods 1668C and 8082A for measuring total PCBs. Total PCBs are measured because
Preliminary Remediation Goals are expressed on a total PCB basis. Use of Method 1668C
is recommended because of its lower detection limits, accuracy, and reliability in
comparison to Method 8082A. However, Method 8082A is acceptable for the determination
of total PCBs, and the method provides quicker laboratory response times and lower
analytical costs in comparison to Method 1668C. Selection of the appropriate analytical
method will be a site-specific decision. The document was issued in 2021.
3.2 Site Assessment Support and Site Characterization Innovations
Technical Support for Monitored Natural Attenuation at
Jacksonville Naval Air Station's Superfund Site's OU 8
Site: Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Location: Region 4, Florida
Center Support: ETSC
The Jacksonville Naval Air Station (NAS) Superfund Site is located on an active U.S. Navy
installation in Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida. The Navy is ultimately responsible for
investigation and cleanup of the site, with oversight provided by EPA and Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This site contains 12 operable units
(OUs). The Region's request for support from ORD's ETSC was specifically for OU 8, and it
focused on arsenic contamination at the site. OU 8 is comprised of Buildings 536 and 937,
known as the Pesticide Shop and former Disease Vector Ecology and Control Center
(DVECC). Building 536 was used for development of pesticide management programs,
training, and pesticide mixing and storage from the 1960s until 1978, when Building 937
was dedicated for that purpose. The site encompasses approximately 4.2 acres of
relatively flat terrain, with landscaped turf grass and mature trees on portions not covered
by structures and pavement (see Figure 3-5). The OU 8 cleanup plan included digging up
contaminated soil and disposing of it in an off-site permitted landfill; placing clean soil
back into the excavated area; and installing a soil cover system over contaminated soil
areas above contaminated groundwater. It also included monitored natural attenuation
(MNA) for contaminated groundwater, and implementation of land use controls.
The ETSC brought in ORD Environmental Scientist, Robert Ford (ORD-CESER-Land
Remediation Technology Division, LRTD), who agreed to support the Region with their
request. Robert Ford was asked by the RPM to determine if the selection and
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
16
-------
Figure 3-5. Location of Jacksonville Naval Air Station's OU 8 (outlined in red)
Note the St. Johns River in the right portion of the aerial,
Source: U.S. Navy, March 2020.
implementation of MNA for remediation of arsenic in groundwater at OU 8 complied with
2015 EPA policy guidance (EPA OSWER Directive 9283.1-36). Natural attenuation
describes a variety of in-place processes that, under favorable conditions, act without
human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or concentration of
contaminants in groundwater. In this case, selection of MNA for contaminant removal
from groundwater is dependent on natural processes that sequester arsenic along the
direction of plume migration. A primary technical issue for MNA assessment is
development of a monitoring network and procedures that accurately track groundwater
flow. Failure to adequately understand the groundwater flow field will result in
misinterpretation of relevant attenuation processes and trends in groundwater cleanup.
While this request came from the Region and was focused on remediation at the NAS OU
8, an increasing number of Superfund sites are starting to evaluate and implement
attenuation-based groundwater remedies, including MNA, in a way that attempts to be
consistent with EPA guidance. This is leading to an increase in ORD technical support
requests from the Regions for sites where there is a desire to use MNA for remediation of
originated inorganic contaminants in groundwater; arsenic is the most frequent
contaminant for technical support requests
Robert Ford conducted a review, using the 3PE analysis tool described below, of the
Navy's submittals to the Region that included both an evaluation of the MNA data and the
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
17
-------
groundwater monitoring data (as shown in Figure 3-6). His review demonstrated that the
Navy contractor's review of MNA performance was based on evaluating the decline in
concentration along the transect of wells from wells "3" to "2" and then to "14". This
analysis is only valid if groundwater consistently flows in the direction that aligns with
placement of monitoring wells (red arrow). Groundwater hydrologic data from March 2015
to March 2020 was evaluated using the 3PE analysis tool, and the results of the evaluation
indicated that the direction of groundwater flow has shifted from the assumed direction
(black line). This indicates that apparent attenuation trends observed along the assumed
flow path may be erroneous.
According to Robert Ford, "My
technical evaluation of
groundwater hydrology was
facilitated through use of an
analysis tool developed and
published by ORD in 2014. The
analysis tool is called "3PE",
and it is described in an ORD
Report (EPA/600/R-14/273)
that is posted at the EPA
Science Inventory website. 3PE
has been an incredibly useful
tool for technical support
reviews, and we are trying to
get others outside of EPA to
use it more consistently. The
analysis approach tends to
highlight the types of data
quality issues that underlie the
disparity between assumed
and actual groundwater flow Figure 3-6. 3PE Results
conditions." While inaccuracies in Plotting the wells and assumed/observed flow-paths at the site,
the collection of groundwater Source: epa, n.d.
hydrologic data are always a
concern, failure to consider external stresses that can influence flow directions can be
more problematic. External stresses to the aquifer can include surface water bodies with
time-varying stage (rivers, lakes, reservoirs), seasonal variations in recharge from
precipitation, and cyclical or episodic groundwater withdrawals from on-site extraction
wells or off-site production wells.
ORD's review provided insight to the RPM that was impactful to the Region for the
following reasons:
1. With ORD's insight, on-going concerns with the site's groundwater data variability,
initially identified by the RPM and FDEP, were associated with impacts on the
evaluation of MNA at the site. Without consideration of all external factors
2140100
2140000
«- 2139900
DC
C
2139800
2139700
2139600
-
37
39
15
14 Q
- 1 o
1
/
2 d
-
3
N
/
/
J
» 4
O Monitor Wells
3PE Triangles
—Assumed Flow Path
— Observed Flow Path
:
\
-
17
\
1111
i i i i
o
19
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
436700 436800 436900 437000 437100 437200
Easting, ft
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
18
-------
influencing the site's groundwater flow patterns (such as the St. Johns River tidal
fluctuations), evaluation of MNA effectiveness was incomplete.
2. ORD provided recommendations on how to improve groundwater monitoring at the
site to ensure informative data are collected and can be used to evaluate the use of
MNA at the site. This information assisted the RPM with developing requests for
further analysis by the Navy to ensure all potential influences on groundwater flow
gradient variability are considered.
3. The review identified a concern with well casing elevations as there were
unexplained changes to them. Per the RPM, the "Navy's contractor would re-verify
the top of well casing elevations and water depths since the recent potentiometric
map had changed from historical groundwater (GW) flow map after the Navy's new
contractor began collecting the data in the last couple of years."
Peter Dao, Region 4's SEMD site RPM, stated "Robert's review provided me with insight on
potential causes of the strange potentiometric map and flow directions and also identifies
the deficiency of the MNA evaluation performed. This gives the Navy the details needed to
make adjustments to the monitoring program."
Technical Review of Site Documents and Recommendations for
Location of New Extraction Well at Findett Corp. Superfund Site
Site: Findett Corp. Superfund Site
Location: Region 7, Missouri
Center Support: GWTSC
The Findett Corp. Superfund site was the location of a fluid and solvent recycling facility
from 1962 to 1973 in St. Charles, Missouri. In 1985, EPA collected groundwater samples
from a series of monitoring wells which revealed the presence of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Subsequent RI work was performed in 1987 and 1988, including a
hydrogeologic investigation, groundwater sampling, and soil sampling. A record of
decision was issued in December 1988, and it included the following remedies: hydraulic
control using extraction wells, air stripping of the extracted water, discharge to the local
wastewater treatment plant, and soil remediation.
Since 1988, contaminated soils were removed from OU 1 - soil and groundwater, and the
details of this remedial action are summarized in the 2004 Remedial Action Completion
Report. Two groundwater extraction wells were drilled and installed to remove
contaminated water and prevent migration of contaminants off-site. The first, EXT-1, was
drilled within the contaminant source area, but the cohesive soil layers in which this well
was completed severely limited the amount of water that could be pumped from the well
(0.5 gallons per minute [gpm]) and its capture zone. The second well used for extraction,
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
19
-------
MW-6, is screened through two sand layers with higher hydraulic conductivity, allowing
the well to be pumped at 12 gallons per minute, and to create a capture zone within the
Upper Granular Unit (UGU). These two extraction wells have been used for several years.
Other boreholes that have been drilled are connected to a deeper layer of sand and
gravel, the Lower Granular Unit (LGU). Groundwater samples collected from wells
screened within the LGU have detected contaminants from OU 1 to the north and east.
The current extraction wells do not draw water from the LGU, leading to the current
interest in drilling a new extraction well.
Region 7 requested technical assistance from the GWTSC to review available documents
related to site history, monitoring, and remediation and recommend where to drill a new
groundwater extraction well that would more effectively capture groundwater
contaminants (location shown on Figure 3-7). The new well would serve to replace an
on-site underachieving extraction well. The GWTSC, with support from its contractors,
recommended the installation of a new extraction well at a specific location that would
allow pumping from a continuous sand layer, which provided insight on how to better
capture the plume and enhance the region's decision making. Flow from the UGU and LGU
moves downgradient of the source area to this proposed location of the new well. The new
well screen should fully penetrate the sand layer. Given the uncertainty associated with
the geology and hydraulics of the new extraction well, the well will likely need to run
continuously at a rate of 10-50 gpm. It was also recommended that MW-6 continue to be
pumped at 12 gpm for an extended period, followed by an evaluation of whether it is
necessary to continue operating both wells in the future.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
20
-------
Figure 3-7. Proposed Location of New Extraction Well at the Findett Corp.
Superfund Site
Source: Geotechnology, Inc., February 2009
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Lead Forensics Analysis for Historic Potteries
Site: Non-site-specific
Location: Region 2, New Jersey
Center Support: GWTSC
Pb is a naturally occurring element generally found in soil at low levels. In many locations
across the U.S., however, the concentrations of Pb in soils are much higher because of
human activities - especially in and around urban areas, from past industrial operations
that involved Pb.
A team comprised of representatives
from EPA Region 2, OLEM and ORD
developed a multi-phased plan to
determine if Pb-contaminated soils on
properties sampled in 2018 and 2019 i
East Trenton, New Jersey, could be
attributed to historical industrial
operations in the surrounding area
(Figures 3-8, 3-9 and 3-10).
Previous investigations by EPA in this
area included a former solder
manufacturer that operated from the
1950s until the 1980s. The area is
immediately surrounded by residential
properties as well as other commercial
and industrial facilities.
The team evaluated historical records
of the area to identify other potential sources of the Pb contamination. Historical records
indicated that potteries were prevalent throughout the City of Trenton from approximately
1850 through 1970, with peak years between 1870 and 1930. During this time period
over 50 potteries operated throughout Trenton, including several located in East Trenton.
Based on historical records the major products produced included table wares, hotel
china, sanitary wares (tubs, toilets, sinks, etc.), various artistic ceramic pieces, and
electrical porcelain materials. Pb was commonly used in the glazes for several of these
products. EPA is investigating whether Pb was 1) released to the atmosphere during the
firing process and accumulated in the surrounding soil via atmospheric deposition and/or
2) leached into soil from buried ceramic material used as fill.
Figure 3-8. Sampling Team Observing a Soil
Core from a Direct Push Sampler
Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
22
-------
The Region collected hundreds of
soil, pottery chip, and tree core
samples to conduct a forensic
analysis of the pattern of
depositional Pb in the East Trenton
neighborhood. ORD/Groundwater
Characterization and Remediation
Division (GCRD)/Subsurface
Remediation Branch (SRB) provided
in-house laboratory support,
including quality assurance and
quality control analysis and data
analysis/interpretation. The ORD lab
analyzed 311 soil digests for Pb
isotope ratio analysis by High
Resolution-Inductively Coupled
Plasma Mass Spectrometry (HR-ICP- Fjgure 3_9 Direct Push Sample showing
MS) (208Pb/204Pb; 207Pb/204Pb; Evidence of Pottery within the Soil at Depth
206Pb/204Pb); 52 tree ring digests source: epa, n.d.
for Pb isotope ratio analysis and full
trace metals scan by HR-ICP-MS; and 44 ceramic chips (sample processing, digestion,
metals analysis, and Pb isotope ratio analysis). Sampling is ongoing and no determination
has been made yet regarding the residential Pb contamination source(s). The sampling
and forensic analyses completed to date are expected to provide valuable insight to focus
additional investigation and ultimately to understand Pb sources and environmental
distribution mechanisms.
~cnn
LM043-CH001-01
LM043-CH002-01
LM044-CH001-01
LM045-CH001-01
LM045-CH002-01
LM045-CH003-01
LM045-CH004-01
9 pottery chip samples were received by ORD on 7/24/2020.
~2 gram pieces were crushed/sieved to <2mm.
The powders were microwave-digested in 10% nitric acid.
The digestates were analyzed for metals content and Pb
isotope ratios.
LM045-CH005-01
LM046-CH001-01
Figure 3-10. Pottery Chips Containing Lead Found at East Trenton Site
Source: EPA, 2020
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
23
-------
I Technical Support for the Innovative Assessment of Lead Mobility,
Bioaccessibility, and Impacts on Tundra Swan Health in the Lower
Coeur d'Alene River Basin from Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Site: Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Location: Region 10, Idaho
Center Support: ETSC
Pb is a significant contaminant of concern (COC) at the Bunker Hill Mining and
Metallurgical Complex in Smelterville, Idaho, as well as at many other locations in the
U.S. The Bunker Hill Site was a large mining and ore processing operation that operated
for over 100 years and produced silver, Pb, zinc and other metals. During and after
mining activities, tailings and other waste materials were transported downstream into the
Lower Coeur d'Alene River Basin (Figure 3-11).
Figure 3-11. Area Map Showing the Study Area within Northern Idaho in the
Western United States
Inset map is focused on the Lower Coeur d'Alene Basin study area including the location of the historic
Bunker Hill mining and smelting operations.
Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
24
-------
As a result, over 1,100 square miles of sediments within the Lower Basin contain elevated
Pb concentrations3. The toxicity and mobility of Pb can vary depending on the sediment
oxidation-reduction potential (i.e., redox conditions) which impacts its speciation and
binding with other sediment constituents. The Lower Coeur d'Alene Basin floodplain
contains abundant marshes, wetlands and lateral lakes that provide an important stopover
point for migrating tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus) that feed on wetland plants
growing in contaminated sediments and ingest large quantities of Pb in the process. Lethal
Pb poisoning of tundra swans has been documented in the Coeur d'Alene basin for nearly
a century4. EPA is working to create clean feeding habitat for the tundra swans and other
wildlife/waterfowl in the Lower Basin by converting contaminated agricultural lands to
clean and functional wetlands. Scientists from multiple ORD Centers—Todd Luxton, Anna
Wade, and Matt Noerpel (all of CESER-LRTD), Richard Wilkin (CESER-GRCD), Mark G.
Johnson and Jay Reichman (Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment's,
[CPHEA's] - Pacific Ecological Systems Division [PESD]), and Matt Etterson (Center for
Computational Toxicology and Exposure's [CCTE's] - Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology
Division [GLTED]) - have collaborated with EPA Region 10 RPMs, Science Division staff
and STLs on addressing key questions on the impacts of Pb pollution at the Bunker Hill
Site. In addition, the collaboration has included scientists from Idaho Fish and Game, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and Washington State University.
The technical support from ORD was made possible by several grants: FY 2018 Regional
Applied Research Effort (RARE) (Soil amendments to reduce bioavailability of toxic metals
in contaminated soils and sediments); FY 2020 STLR (Metal bioavailability in sediments
experiencing wetting and drying cycles—the impact of sulfur and iron chemistry), and an
FY 2021 STLR (Development of tools to site-specifically monitor exposure and effects of
Pb in a migratory bird). Each grant focuses on a unique aspect of the Pb contamination
which ranges from understanding the environmental variables impacting Pb speciation and
mobility, to Pb exposure to swans and monitoring effectiveness of remedial actions, to the
potential for sediment amendments to decrease Pb toxicity. These complementary
research projects provide a holistic assessment of the multifaceted components of Pb
pollution at one of the largest Superfund Sites in the U.S.5
The FY 2018 RARE project focused on determining the effectiveness of sediment
amendments to sequester Pb and reduce its bioaccessibility. The study used 17 different
types of biochar (which differed in feedstock material and pyrolysis temperatures) and an
activated carbon to determine which was the most effective at decreasing Pb
bioaccessibility in sediment from a Lower Basin marsh. The results showed that roughly
half of the amendments could significantly decrease Pb bioaccessibility. However, the
magnitude of the decrease in bioaccessibility was relatively low, with none of the biochar
3 EPA U.S. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex OU 3, 2002.
4 Blus LJ, Henny CJ, Hoffman DJ, Sileo L, Audet DJ. Persistence of High Lead Concentrations and Associated
Effects in Tundra Swans Captured Near a Mining and Smelting Complex in Northern Idaho. Ecotoxicology
1999; 8: 125-132.
5 National Research Council. Superfund and mining megasites: Lessons from the Coeur d'Alene River Basin:
National Academies Press, 2005.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
25
-------
additions deceasing bioaccessibility by more than 10%. The study also concluded that
changing sediment redox conditions from reducing to oxidizing could significantly increase
Pb bioaccessibility; which is also a conclusion from the FY 2020 STLR project.
The results of the FY 2020 STLR project showed that seasonal water-level fluctuations in
lakes and wetlands of the Lower Coeur d'Alene Basin have a large impact on sediment
redox conditions and Pb mobility. Specifically, wetlands that have lower water levels
during the summer/fall have higher Pb concentrations in the porewater due to redox
conditions changing from reducing to oxidizing conditions.
The FY 2021 STLR project focuses on the development of tools to monitor the exposure
and effects of Pb on tundra swans during their annual stopover in the Lower Coeur d'Alene
Basin. Specifically, the project's objective is to characterize the link between Pb
concentrations in sediments and in swan blood and feces, to provide a surrogate measure
of swan health (blood Pb) that is more feasible to monitor over time (fecal Pb). To better
understand factors associated with a strong link between Pb concentrations in these three
media, stable Pb isotope analysis and eDNA analyses were used. Initial results showed a
good relationship between sediment and feces Pb concentrations but the correspondence
with blood Pb concentrations has not yet been determined. Additionally, the study
hypothesized that the incidental ingestion of Pb-contaminated sediments would be
dependent on the type of plant a swan consumed. Prior knowledge indicated that swans
primarily feed on the deeply rooted Wapato (Sagittaria latifolia; water potato) and that
the highest Pb exposures would likely be associated with its consumption. However, the
analysis of plant DNA in swan feces indicated that swans feed on a large variety of plants
such as bur-reed (Sparganium spp.) and Himalayan horsetail (Equisetum diffusum), and
more than 35 other species. Further, initial results indicated that fecal Pb concentrations
were somewhat higher when some plant species (e.g., Wapato) were consumed while the
opposite trend was found with other plants (e.g.,
sedges of Cyperaceae spp.). Migratory wildlife
such as tundra swans can be exposed to Pb
throughout their life cycle, which can potentially
complicate attributing blood Pb levels to a
particular source, which makes it more
challenging to draw conclusions about identified
correlations with Pb concentrations in fecal or
sediment samples. Therefore, this study used the
analysis of Pb stable isotopes to effectively
"fingerprint" the Bunker Hill Pb signature and
determine that most swan blood Pb originated
from the Bunker Hill Superfund Site. The results
from the swan study will improve the monitoring
of swan Pb exposure and help identify the
effectiveness of remediation strategies
implemented thought the Lower Basin.
"The Lower Coeur d'Alene Basin is
characteristic of other large
watershed mining sites across the
western U.S.. By understanding how
lead is mobilizedand how and
where waterfowl are exposed, we
can be more strategic in targeting
and monitoring our response
actions to reduce swan exposure
and mortalities while we continue to
tackle the source of contaminated
sediments to the wetlands."
Kim Prestbo, Region 10 RPM, SEMD
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
26
-------
Overall, the three studies performed in collaboration between ORD and Region 10 have
greatly improved the understanding of the processes controlling Pb mobility, wildlife
exposure pathways, and the efficacy of different remediation options. Because these
studies focus on understanding environmental processes (e.g., impact of water-level
fluctuations on Pb mobility) and wildlife monitoring strategies (e.g., use of Pb isotopes and
correlations between feces and blood) the observations from these studies can help inform
RPMs at other Pb-contaminated sites throughout the United States.
3.3 Remedy Evaluation and Innovations
As remedial technologies evolve and change over time, so does the overall strategy for
site cleanup. The TSCD applies its combined expertise to provide up-to-date knowledge on
the latest technologies for soil, sediment, and groundwater remediation. Independent
evaluations are paramount to improve remedial strategies and ensure remedial goals are
achieved. The TSCD's FY 2021's consultations covered various sites where optimization of
existing remediation systems and support in the selection of successful remedial
strategies is needed.
Evapotranspiration (ET) Cover Guidance for the Island of Puerto
Rico
Site: Non-site-specific
Location: Region 2, Puerto Rico
Center Support: ETSC
ORD supported the development of an Evapotranspiration (ET) Cover guidance document
entitled, "Design, Implementation, and Approval of Evapotranspiration Covers in Puerto
Rico" (McCleary, E., T. Abichou, and S. Rock, EPA/600/R-21/269, February 2022) for use
on the island (and in other tropical and subtropical climates). The guidance is intended to
serve as technical and regulatory assistance for implementing ET covers as alternative
final landfill covers under 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 258 and any other
applicable regulations and policies.
According to Carl Plossl (Region 2 Senior RCRA Enforcement Officer), "Puerto Rico has
some 19 remaining unlined municipal landfills, i.e., open dumps, that threaten drinking
water supplies, sensitive ecosystems, and adjacent environmental justice communities.
One of the most significant barriers to proper closure has been and remains the high cost
and poor sustainability of conventional closure cap systems for an island with median
family incomes one third that of the 50 states."
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
27
-------
Additionally, according to a 2016 EPA fact
sheet, there are "...approximately 29 operating
landfills in Puerto Rico, the majority of which
are beyond capacity." More than half of the
operating landfills are unlined open dumps
that continue to release significant volumes of
contaminants that may threaten human health
and the environment. As described in the
document, a number of historical landfills and
sections of operating open dumps have been
left untended long enough for their daily
covers to develop substantial vegetation (as
seen in Figure 3-12). One aspect of this
guidance addresses technical and regulatory-
acceptable ways to approve these potential
pre-existing ET covers as final, alternative
landfill covers to expedite formal and final
closure.
Figure 3-12. EPA Inspecting a Well-
vegetated Historic Landfill in Puerto Rico
The ET cover guidance shows how to design Source: EPA ORD, n.d.
ET covers for different Ecozones in Puerto Rico
and demonstrates the technical equivalence of ET covers to accepted compacted clay
covers. It aims to give regulators, municipal representatives, and contractors in Puerto
Rico (and other tropical or subtropical climates) a way to achieve regulatory acceptance
and closure at landfills for which an ET cover is appropriate. The guidelines were designed
to help ensure the protection of public health and the environment by providing a
protective, low-cost, and low-maintenance final alternative cover solution throughout
Puerto Rico (Figure 3-13 shows a conceptual example of an ET cover.
States such as Colorado and Texas have adopted guidance specifically for accepting ET
covers as allowable final landfill covers under their respective regulations. Both states
have ET cover guidance where designers and regulators can refer to prototype designs for
specific regions, thus eliminating the need to develop new conceptual designs for each
landfill site, saving initial design costs, and speeding up the regulatory permitting process.
EPA's guidance follows a similar path and can be adopted and adapted by any entity in a
tropical or subtropical region. ET covers have been successfully implemented throughout
the U.S. at hundreds of hazardous and solid waste landfills and over time have generally
not weathered as much as compacted clay caps.
* M
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
28
-------
ORD arid its technical support brought decades of ET cover experience, in Colorado,
Texas, and other states, to the development of this guidance document and understood
the significant impact ET covers could have in Puerto Rico. In addition, their expertise and
previous ET cover field studies in Puerto Rico allowed for advanced material to be
presented using an easy-to-follow approach tailored specifically for Puerto Rico. ORD,
through its technical support, ensured that the final product was a technical and
regulatory guidance document
that gave space for the
Commonwealth's sovereignty and
for its regulators to use without
hinderance.
Carl Plossl added, "for more than
12 years, ORD has supported EPA
Region 2 in addressing this
problem through research and
development projects. These
ongoing efforts have included
studying past, successful open
dump closures in Puerto Rico
(RARE Project); developing
sampling methods and analyzing
leachate releases from unlined
landfills (an enduring Figure 3-13. Schematic an ET Cover and Surface and
enforcement issue), in Soil Water Fluxes
preparation for developing and Source; EPA/600/R-21/269, February 2022
testing low cost, sustainable
leachate interception and treatment systems (RARE Project); and writing the first
guidance for suitable
evapotranspirative landfill caps for
use in sub-tropical locations. This
latter, cooperative effort has included
a variety of site evaluations;
development of an earlier draft
guidance; design of a specific ET
cover for an EPA and DOJ ordered
landfill/open dump closure (Santa
Isabel); a professional seminar on ET
covers in Puerto Rico; support of
additional Region 2 closure orders by
evaluating suitability for alternative,
more environmentally-protective
closure solutions; and, most recently,
this detailed guidance manual."
Compliance Assurance Division (ECAD)
Evapotranspiration (Et)
Precipitation (P)
Leachate
Groundwater
*r - P - R - Fl - ilSw
"This decade-plus collaboration between
Region 2 Enforcement and ORD shows
the benefits of a sustained, cooperative\,
iterative approach to problem solving."
One of the most important aspects of the
Region-ORD [ETSC] partnership in 2020
was the final realization of all the good
technical support as evidenced by the
RCTS™ technical report being published
... and key insights on the passive
system that led to treatment resiliency
and improved monitoring."
Carl Plossl, Region 2 Senior RCRA
Enforcement Officer, Enforcement and
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
29
-------
What is so compelling about this guidance is that it provides straightforward instructions
that regulators and cover designers can use to review and design ET covers in a way that
saves significant time and resources. This guidance gives regulators and municipalities the
tools to construct, review, and seek financial assistance for ET covers to mitigate the risks
that the open dumps, historical landfills, and over-capacity landfills pose to public health
and the environment. As a result, ET covers are a more accessible final landfill cover
option. The implementation of ET covers in Puerto Rico would address the solid waste
crisis on the island by catalyzing the closure of open dumps, which would in turn
encourage compliant landfill cells and a more balanced solid waste economy. Between
seismic and hurricane risks to solid waste infrastructure and their potential to create
additional releases, ET covers can be a critical component of a sustainable solid waste
management plan and in building towards a more resilient Puerto Rico.
Work Plan Review for Barrier Wall Monitoring at Cavenham Forest
Industries
Site: Cavenham Forest Industries
Location: Region 4, Mississippi
Center Support: SCMTSC
Cavenham Forest Industries (CFI), Limited
Liability Corporation owns a former wood
treating facility in Gulfport, Mississippi. On
November 27, 2013, the EPA issued the
renewed RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) Permit for the
corrective action portion of the RCRA
permit. The facility was originally founded
around 1906 and was a wood treating
facility for pilings, timbers, and cross-ties
for local railroads and piers. The facility
primarily used creosote as a preservative
for wood treatment, although
pentachlorophenol (PCP) was used as a
preservative in the later years of the
facility's operation. CFI acquired the facility on Figure 3-14. Old Pond Central Area 1987
May 5, 1986 and operated the plant for Source: era, n.d.
approximately a year and a half before closing
the site in November of 1987 (Figures 3-14 and 3-15).
COCs identified at the site include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenolic
compounds, and dioxin/furan congeners. These compounds have been detected in several
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
of the site's Solid Waste Management Units
(SWMLJs) and other areas of concern
(AOCs). Remedial actions to address these
areas have included: closure of surface
impoundments; installation of four soil-
bentonite cut-off walls and four steel sheet
pile retaining walls to provide containment
of COCs; the treatment, containment,
and/or removal of contaminated soils; the
installation of numerous recovery wells,
injection trenches and an air sparging
system to remove contaminants from
impacted soil and groundwater; and the
installation, operation, and maintenance of
three groundwater treatment systems. CFI
follows protocols as outlined in permits
issued by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and EPA for the
sampling, treatment, and discharge of water associated with the permitted remedial
activities at the site.
AOC 6, also referred to as Old Pond, is a former shallow surface impoundment that was
originally constructed around 1940. It was utilized to contain contaminated storm water
runoff and wastes from the former process area of the treatment operation. The pond was
filled with wood bark and debris during the mid-1970s. Closure construction activities
were conducted at this site between July 1988 and October 1992. Those activities
included the installation of a slurry (barrier)
treatment facilities over the entire pond
location (Figure 3-16).
SCMTSC performed a technical review on
a proposed Work Plan for future efforts at
the CFI site. The Work Plan was titled
"Interim Measures Work Plan and Quality
Assurance Protocol: AOC 6 Old Pond
Barrier Wall Monitoring". SCMTSC was
asked by the Region to focus on the
following concerns:
• Determine if the proposed number
of monitoring well pairs is sufficient
for long term monitoring of a
2,790-foot-long slurry wall; Figure 3-16. Cavenham Slurry Wall
„ , ^ ^ , . , Construction in 2013
. Determine the distance(s) from Source: Envlronmenta| Management Services, July 2013
the barrier wall for monitoring
wells (inside and outside the barrier wall) that would optimize the potential for a
I
am
Figure 3-15. Old Pond West End
Seepage in 1987
Source: EPA, n.d.
wall, a protective cap, and withdrawal and
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
hydrologic response from stress
testing the aquifer inside the barrier
wall containment;
• Determine the optimum pumping rate
and duration of the stress test; and
• Determine potential areas at the key-
in of the barrier wall with the potential
for underflow.
SCMTSC completed the of review the
Interim Measures Work Plan (IMWP) for the
site and provided comments.
Numerous areas for improvement were
noted in the review report, and most were
then implemented by CFI. SCMTSC was also
able to highlight data gaps which were
preventing adequate characterization. Based
on SCMTSC's recommendations, CFI
collected field and operational data that
included groundwater elevation data
measured under normal conditions, i.e. no
pumping, and operational data for the
recovery pumps, etc. The PRPs also sourced
out some of the equipment requested, such
as dedicated in-line flow meters for the recovery wells. The draft Interim Measures Work
Plan (IMWP) Quality Assurance Protocol: AOC 6 Old Pond Barrier Wall Monitoring report
was revised to include a phased approach proposed by SCMTSC and outlined the steps to
be taken in each phase. The new approach allowed the draft plan to be approved and
finalized. The project interim data collection measures are now underway and results
from the phase one measures including the SCMTSC recommended tidal influence
evaluation and stress testing will be reviewed by the Region with support from the
SCMTSC when the data are available.
This will improve the ability of Region 4 and CFI to perform remedial activities at the site
(Figure 3-17).
"EPA ORD and their contractor support
have brought to the table with Cavenham
a level of experience and expertise for
evaluating slurry wall integrity studies
not available in Region 4. They have
provided valuable input in evaluating
slurry wall integrity testing and tidal
influence studies that has led to the
development of an approvable work plan.
The latest set of EPA ORD comments and
largely positive response to the
comments and Revision 4 of the Interim
Measures Work Plan for Old Pond Slurry
Wall Integrity Testing by Cavenham
resulted in four final EPA comments and
subsequent positive response by
Cavenham toward final version of the
work plan due mid-May. SCMTSC will
review the data generated by the tidal
influence study and hydraulic stress
testing of the slurry wall and water level
data. Data interpretation is the most
problematic aspect of the studies."
Jim Smith, R4 RCRA Corrective Action
Specialist, Land Contamination Remediation
Division (LCRD)
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
32
-------
Figure 3-17. Cavenham Site Plan
Source: EPA, July 2004
Phytoremediation Plan Development for McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co. Superfund Site
Site: McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.
Location: Region 9, California
Center Support: ETSC
The McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. Superfund Site in Stockton, California is a 29-acre
former wood preserving facility, where utility pole and railroad tie treatment activities
occurred from 1942 to 1990. Operation of this facility resulted in contamination of soil and
groundwater with PCP, dioxin, PAHs and non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). The RPM
requested ORD's support as a follow-on to a 2019 phytoremediation pilot study conducted
by ORD at the site. The 2019 phytoremediation pilot study was supported by expertise
from both ORD and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) through an interagency
agreement.
The 2019 phytoremediation pilot study (Figure 3-18) results demonstrated that the
contaminated water in the 250-foot-deep plume under the site could be extracted and
used to irrigate a plantation of trees, which would uptake and transpire the water - a
unique application of "active phytoremediation." The Region 9's RPM for the site requested
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
from ORD, the development of a rough plan to implement phytoremediation at the entire
site. The plan was developed based on the estimated achievable pump rate of 50 gallons
of water per minute from the E-zone wells. Using this groundwater extraction rate, ORD
determined the number of trees to be planted at the site should range between 4,000 to
7,000 trees over 7 acres of the site. ORD developed a rough order of magnitude cost
estimate for the phytoremediation plan that totaled $700,000, including bringing
electricity to the area of the site, installing four groundwater pump and irrigation systems,
purchasing and planting the trees, and several years of monitoring and maintenance. The
plan called for planting 80% poplar or willow species and 20% of a selection of local seed-
bearing trees that grow well in the area. The plan also recommended that the trees
planted for the phytoremediation effort be "incorporated into the landscape design for the
redeveloped property".
Previous pilot study work by ORD showed that phytoremediation was well suited to treat
the specific contaminants at the McCormick and Baxter site, and provided an economically
feasible alternative to the traditional costly thermal treatment options. Further, given the
hydrogeological conditions of the site, phytoremediation was determined to be an effective
means of leveraging a low-cost pump and treat system to address groundwater
contamination where pump rates are low and source contamination is primarily contained
on site.
Figure 3-18. 2019 Pilot Project Team Onsite
2019 pilot project team on-site to evaluate the planted trees. Ultimately the phytoremediation pilot project
demonstrated that poplars planted at the site could effectively treat the contaminated groundwater. Note that the
poplar trees were planted in the containers used as part of the pilot demonstration project. In the proposed full-
scale project, the trees would be planted in the ground at the site.
Source: EPA, August 2019
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
According to Jana Dawson, the RPM for the site with Region 9's SEMD, "The challenge
faced was that there are not many hydrogeologists with the knowledge and expertise
needed to design a phytoremediation system. Steve Rock at ORD [CESER-LRTD] led the
development of the phytoremediation concept design process. Steve possessed a wealth
of experience and knowledge, and also provided access to outside contracting support
with expertise in the field of phytoremediation. The expertise, support, and resources ORD
provided to complete a full concept design for phytoremediation for the McCormick and
Baxter site was invaluable in allowing us to complete a treatment alternative evaluation
for groundwater that included a highly cost-efficient and effective treatment technology.
In addition, ORD's help came at a critical time as currently there is a potential prospective
purchaser who would like to negotiate a purchase price for the property in exchange for
responsibility for implementing the groundwater treatment remedy. ORD effectively
partnered with our Superfund and Emergency Management Division here at Region 9 to
meet the needs of the stakeholders and EPA within the CERCLA framework for addressing
groundwater contamination and facilitating cleanup at the site."
Geophysical Support for Olin Chemical Superfund Site
Site: Olin Chemical
Location: Region 1, Massachusetts
Center Support: SCMTSC
In January 2021, Region 1 requested expert geophysical technical support from the
SCMTSC for the Olin Chemical Superfund Site (Site) to assist with the implementation of
specialized approaches for the Site's groundwater investigation.
The Site is comprised of the 53-acre property located at 51 Eames Street in Wilmington,
Massachusetts (Property) and adjoining off-Property areas that were impacted by
contaminant releases from manufacturing and waste disposal activities formerly
conducted at the Property. A chemical manufacturing facility (Facility) was located within
the 30-acre northern portion of the Property, which made specialty chemicals for the
rubber and plastics industry from 1953 until it closed in 1986. It was owned and operated
by several different corporate entities over that time. During the Facility's operation,
wastes were released to the environment through disposal in unlined and leaking lagoons
on the Property, spills, and other processes. These discharges resulted in groundwater
contamination both on and off the Property. Due to detections of n-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA), a primary COC associated with the Site, the Town of Wilmington placed its
drinking water supply wells off-line in 2002 and 2003 that are in the Maple Meadow Brook
(MMB) aquifer downgradient of the Property.
Throughout 2021, SCMTSC provided support for the following geophysical phases:
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
35
-------
Method selection;
Implementation;
Data collection;
Data processing and
modeling;
Interpretation;
Resolution, accuracy, and
precision; and
Quality assurance/quality
control
ORD's support included the
review and comment on the
following submittals:
"Dr. [Dale] Werkema's expertise in applied geophysics,
specifically technique selection, planning, and
implementation, has greatly improved EPA's
understanding of the bedrock surface throughout the
Olin Groundwater Study Area, which encompasses
more than 1,400 acres throughout South Wilmington
and North Woburn, Massachusetts. We look forward to
continuing our collaboration with Dale and SCMTSC as
the Olin conceptual site mode! is updated and EPA
begins scoping a comprehensive bedrock investigation
for the 2023 field season."
Christopher Kelly, Region 1 RPM, SEMD
• Containment Area Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR) Testing Plan;
• Processed Data from Low Frequency GPR
(LFGPR) Test;
• Aerial Electromagnetic (AEM) Survey data
and MMB Top of Bedrock Surface report
(Figure 3-19); and
• Proposed Phase IB direct-push
groundwater profiling locations to better
characterize NDMA in groundwater in the
"East of Olin" investigation area
SCMTSC provided assistance with evaluating the
PRP's data, interpretation of the data, and data
validation.
Specific recommendations included the
following:
• Plotting raw, uninterpreted GPR data as a
method of visualizing the degree of
uncertainty for the derived models and
enhancing the value of discussions
between EPA and the PRP's technical
teams (Figure 3-20).
• Proposed soil borings for the initial LFGPR
investigation area that would help
improve data resolution and quantify the
Figure 3-19. AEM Survey 2020
Aerial electromagnetic (AEM) survey being conducted
above the Maple Meadow Brook Wetland.
Source: Joshua Fontaine, EPA, November 2020
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
36
-------
accuracy of geophysical data collection methods with known bedrock elevation data
(Figure 3-21).
• Proposed additional soil borings that were selected by the RPM to help improve the
interpretation of the existing and future GPR surveys, which may be used to
interpret the bedrock elevation and surface topography between known data points
at considerably less cost than additional borings.
The work supported the Region's goal of moving investigation work forward expeditiously
while still producing valid and accurate results.
SCMTSC support will continue into FY 2022, including review of geophysical data and the
PRP's technical submittals for the next phase of data collection.
Figure 3-20. LFGPR Survey
2021
Low-frequency ground-penetrating radar
(LFGPR) survey being conducted atop
the former waste disposal area (the
"Containment Area").
Source: Christopher Kelly, EPA, May
2021
Figure 3-21, Groundwater
Profiling 2022
Direct-push groundwater profiling activities in
the "East of Olin" investigation area.
Source: Olin Corporation, May 2022
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Evaluation of MNA for inorganic Contaminants at Weldon Spring
Quarry/Plant/Pits Site
Site: Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits Site
Location: Region 7, Missouri
Center Support: GWTSC
The Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits site is located within St. Charles County, roughly 30
miles west of St. Louis and is comprised of the Weldon Spring Chemical Plant and
Raffinate Pits and the Weldon Spring Quarry. Once used to support production of
trinitrotoluene and dinitrotoluene for World War II efforts, the chemical plant eventually
supported the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to convert processed uranium ore to
pure uranium trioxide, intermediate compounds, and uranium metal. Additionally, the
quarry, which was initially used to mine limestone aggregate, was eventually used by the
AEC as a disposal area for uranium and thorium residues from the chemical plant
operations.
The on-site operations
from the Department of
Energy (DOE) and Army
resulted in the release
of hazardous substances
to soil, sediment,
surface water, and
groundwater, leading to
the addition of the
Weldon Spring Quarry
and subsequently the
Chemical Plant and
Raffinate Pits to the
National Priorities List
(NPL). Remedial
activities such as,
installation of an
impermeable cap over
the most contaminated
portion of the site were
completed at the site,
with final construction
completion being achieved in 2005. The DOE continues to perform periodic groundwater
monitoring and Land Use Control inspections.
Figure 3-22. Historical Photograph of Weldon Spring Uranium
Processing Facility
Source: DOE, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
As part of ORD's on-going support of the site, in FY 2021,
Drs. Rick Wilkin (CESER-GCRD) and Randall Ross
(CESER-TSCD) joined, Rob Weber (CESER-TSCD and the
Region 7 STL) and the Region 7 RPM for the Weldon
Spring Site National Laboratory Network (pictured in
Fig ures 3-22 and 3-23) Collaboration Kick-Off Meeting.
During this and other follow-on meetings, EPA discussed
issues related to technical and policy guidance for
remediation of inorganic contaminants, the importance of
MNA mechanisms other than dilution and dispersion,
vertical and horizontal data gaps and potential
characterization methods that could be employed at the
site. ORD had performed a technical review of uranium
attenuation/mobilization processes, and recent research
findings were brought to the attention of the collaborative
group regarding uranium uptake and attenuation in
carbonate-rich groundwater environments. A detailed
discussion of potential improvements to the subsurface
monitoring program was provided. Specific locations were
"Technical support provided
by ORD, through CESER and
GWTSC, has been instrumental
in evaluating groundwater
remedy performance issues at
the Weldon Spring site. ORD's
expertise and
recommendations, specifically
related to inorganics in
fractured bedrock aquifers,
have allowed the project team
to develop a site strategy
based on the best available
science to achieve our desired
outcome."
Danny O'Connor, Region 7 RPM,
SEMD
recommended for additional monitoring wells and the
potential benefits of using geophysical techniques to better understand karstic geology at
the site and implications for groundwater flow were discussed.
Figure 3-23.
Weldon Spring
Disposal Cell circa
2002
Source: DOE, Weldon
Spring Site Fact Sheet, 2021
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Evaluation of Landfill Cap and Potential for Monitored Natural
Attenuation at Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site - OU 5-
South Landfill Source Control
Site: Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site - OU 5 - South Landfill Source Control
Location: Region 7, Nebraska
Center Support: GWTSC and ETSC
The Hastings East Industrial Park and Former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD) is located
east of the city of Hastings, Nebraska and covers more than 72 square miles,
approximately 48,000 acres. The property was used for producing armaments until the
early 1950s, and later for de-militarizing armaments until it was decommissioned in the
early 1960s. The Hastings South Landfill Subsite originated as a clay pit which was
constructed into a two-cell landfill with a drainage ditch between the cells. The landfill was
operated by the city of Hastings from the early 1960s to the early 1980s and received
both municipal and industrial waste. The selected long-term remedy included landfill
capping and MNA of groundwater for TCE as a COC. The PRPs installed the cap in 2005.
The landfill subsite is currently used as a recreational dog park.
The most recent review of the remedy concluded that a protectiveness determination for
the landfill subsite cannot be made until the EPA evaluates potential modifications to
reduce infiltration through the landfill cap, and assesses migration extent of contaminated
groundwater. The ongoing PRP for this subsite is the city of Hastings. The city's contractor
has prepared a Revised Focused FS (October 2020) to evaluate possible modifications to
the remedy.
The ETSC supported ORD's evaluation of the landfill
cap's ET cover. ORD's Steve Rock provided a review
of the existing cap, which included additional insight
on how the PRP could further reduce infiltration at
the landfill. Proposed recommendations included
modifying the existing landfill cap by enriching the
soil, roughing areas of the land, and the creation of
tree-islands to promote additional native species
taking root to enhance habitat for wildlife.
The selected remedial alternative (RA-2 -
Institutional Controls and MNA) will rely primarily on
dilution and dispersion, since the geochemical
conditions downgradient of the source area are
aerobic and therefore not readily conducive to destructive biodegradation processes for
TCE. The downgradient end of the plume continues to expand, as indicated by modeling
studies and recent groundwater monitoring data. The GWTSC supported ORD's evaluation
"Support provided by ORD,
through the ETSC and GWTSC,
has proved to be outstanding in
enriching the RPM's
understanding of conditions
and options, and has helped
guide further evaluation with a
goal of improving the remedy."
Bill Gresham, Region 7 RPM, SEMD
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
40
-------
of the site's groundwater contamination concerns presented by the Region, and this was
provided by Ralph Ludwig. An important conclusion of this review was that distal
treatment of the expanding plume to limit further plume expansion, as identified in other
remedial alternatives, would be costly and yield marginal benefit from a human health
perspective (groundwater elevation for this area shown on Figure 3-24). Based upon
input from the GWTSC's review, the focus for improvements at the site were reducing
infiltration at the landfill by enhancing the existing ET cover, along with using low flow
pumps potentially capture groundwater from the landfill and apply it to the enhanced ET
cover.
MiJrV
¦ SL-0SS]J
fc«S[*08D]
Bf('l 783Tfl 7),
Figure 3-24. Groundwater Elevation Map for South Landfill for June 2017
Source: ARCADIS, Revised Focused Feasibility Study, South Landfill Subsite, Hastings Groundwater
Contamination Site, October 2020
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
41
-------
Technical Review of the Johnson & Ettinger Model at the
HOVENSA Site
Site: HOVENSA
Location: Region 2, U.S. Virgin Islands
Center Support: GWTSC
The former HOVENSA facility (shown in Figure 3-25) is a petroleum refinery covering
approximately 1,500 acres on the southcentral coast of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Operations at the facility began in the mid-1960s. The facility's maximum design capacity
was 545,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) of crude oil per day. Over 60 different types
of crude oil had been processed at the facility. By means of distillation and other refining
processes, crude oil is separated into various components. Light ends (fuel gas) are sent
to the facility's fuel system; naphtha, jet fuel, kerosene and No. 2 oil are further
processed to remove sulfur. HOVENSA ceased all refining and processing operations in
2012. In 2016, the HOVENSA Environmental Response Trust (ERT) was established, with
the responsibility of managing HOVENSA's legacy contamination. The ERT is responsible
for continuing the remediation of contaminated groundwater, as well as managing the
closed land-based units. The land-based units consist of three closed surface
impoundments as well as three landfarms which are in post-closure care.
During the development of the site-wide
Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for
AOCs 1, 2 and 3, the Johnson and
Ettinger (J&E) model was used to perform
risk analysis for constituents that had
been detected at the site. Since the
clean-up goals (Site Specific Target
Levels [SSTLs]) were created in 2006,
EPA wanted to ensure that they are still
protective based on current site
conditions, current science, and
guidance.
EPA requested technical assistance from
the ORD to review the J&E Model Version Figure 3-25. HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix
2.3 used to calculate the groundwater Source: EPA< n-d-
SSTLs based on the protection of indoor air via vapor intrusion (VI) and to determine the
applicability of using the more current Version 3.1. ORD submitted its technical
memorandum to Region 2 on February 5, 2021. The memo included evaluation and
comments on building parameters, exposure factors, vadose zone characteristics,
chemical properties, and parameters for individual Remedial Action Areas (RAAs) and
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
42
-------
SWMUs. The technical memorandum describes the major differences between the J&E
Model Version 2.3 (v2.3) that was used in the 2006 CMS and Version 3.1 (v3.1) of the
model. After extensive review and assistance from Headquarters and ORD technical
experts, ORD technical experts determined that the original SSTLs developed in the CMS
are still protective of human health and the environment for most of the COCs across the
various RAAs and SWMUs. Target levels for benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were more
protective using Version 2.3 of the model while the target levels for toluene and
naphthalene were more protective using Version 3.1.
3.4 Preventing Adverse Human Health and Ecological Risk Impacts
The state-of-the-science to assess current and possible future risks and determine a safe
level for potentially dangerous contaminants to human health and the environment
continues to evolve. TSCD experts provide an in-depth understanding of chemical
constituents most likely to drive human health and ecological risks and how to incorporate
these findings into the various cleanup stages. Three projects are highlighted for FY 2021,
one addressing exposure pathways, one focused on ecological risk assessment, and the
third evaluating site-specific human health risk.
IFisher-Calo Superfund Site Vapor Intrusion Technical Support
Site: Fisher Calo
Location: Region 5, Indiana
Center Support: SCMTSC
The Fisher-Calo site (Site) is an NPL site located in Kingsbury Industrial Park (KIDP) in
LaPorte County, Indiana. An industrial chemical processing and distribution facility was
operated on site. The Site is comprised of three main areas at KIDP and covers more than
500 acres. Four distinct groundwater plumes are located underneath the Site (Figure 3-
26).
The facility is in an area that previously housed the Kingsbury Ordnance Plant, a U.S.
government installation used to manufacture military ordnance. After the installation
closed, Fisher-Calo and various subsidiaries began operations at KIDP in the early 1970s.
Facility operations contaminated soil and groundwater primarily with semi-volatile organic
compounds, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Remedial actions at the site
include removal and cleanup of buried drums and other buried waste, and the design and
installation of a groundwater pump and treat system, which has been operating for over
25 years.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
43
-------
The site contains numerous
buildings and the fourth five-
year review completed in 2015
identified the need to conduct VI
investigations to determine
whether there is a potential VI
exposure pathway. The VI
evaluation included monitoring
of groundwater, exterior soil gas,
and sub-slab soil gas and indoor
air of buildings using Summa
canisters (sampling shown in
Figures 3-27, 3-28, and
3-29)
SCMTSC reviewed the data
collected from 2016 through
2021 to provide VI observations
and recommendations for future
actions and monitoring. SCMTSC
noted that all indoor air (IA)
values are currently below risk-
based thresholds, but sub-slab
(SS) values are high to extremely high for chloroform, tetrachloroethene (PCE), and TCE
through all dates and all locations except in the central portion of One Line South which
only had chloroform exceedances (although notable PCE
values were observed, which should be noted as a reference
during any future sampling events).
Figure 3-26. Fisher Calo Plume Map
Source: EPA, Fifth Five Year Review, 2020
Pre-emptive mitigation or continued IA and SS monitoring
will likely be required to address the potential exposure
from VI. Although preemptive mitigation is preferred, it
would be more difficult to implement because there are . - ,1
numerous commercial property owners at the facility. The
review team analyzed the historical monitoring frequency
for IA and SS for the various areas of the buildings. Passive 1 - .
samplers were proposed for the monitoring in the future to
capture week-long VI compared to the existing one-day
samples. Also, SCMTSC recommended periodic review of the ^
buildings to determine if usage changes or building
alterations had occurred (e.g., electric, water, sewer lines
being installed or decommissioned; building settling, etc.) Figure 3-27. Fisher Calo Summa
and, if so, whether additional VI sampling could be Canister VI Sampling Inside
warranted. Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
44
-------
The review team also stressed that the high levels in
the SS likely indicated that a source of contamination
left in place should be dealt with through additional
remediation and institutional controls. Lastly, the
review team noted that the IA issues may be from a
residual source of contamination under the buildings
(i.e., not just a groundwater issue) or stemming from
other issues (sources) in the building and suggested
ways to investigate the cause of the issue. The team
reviewed existing information, provided VI sampling
support documents including an example QAPP,
participated in several conference calls with the PRPs,
EPA, and the State, and provided detailed written
recommendations. After the initial assessment was
complete, the team reviewed a follow-up VI Sampling
Report and noted that the results did not change the
original recommendations.
"The teams' review was
comprehensive in
understanding the
conceptual site model for
the Site and
recommendations offered
were pragmatic. The
expertise by the review
team was recognized by all
parties and assisted in
understanding that
additional VI investigation
is not warranted at this
point and EPA had
adequate information to
make decisions about the
VI pathway at the Site."
Figure 3-28. Fisher Calo Summa
Canister VI Sampling Outside
Source: EPA, n.d.
Sheri Bianchin, Region 5 RPM,
SEMD
Figure 3-29. Fisher Calo Summa Canister
VI Subslab Sampling
Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Support at the Velsicol
Chemical Corporation Superfund Site
Site: Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Location: Region 5, Michigan
Center Support: ERASC
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (formerly Michigan Chemical Corp.) produced various chemical
compounds and products at its 54-acre main plant site in St. Louis, Michigan from 1936 to
1978, including the fire retardant polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and the pesticide
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). To address contamination discovered at the former
plant site, Velsicol, EPA and the State of Michigan entered into a consent agreement in
1982. Velsicol agreed to construct a slurry wall around the former plant site and put a clay
cap over it. The Pine River, which borders the former main plant site on three sides, was
significantly contaminated, which caused the State of Michigan to issue a no-consumption
advisory for all fish species within it.
From 1998 to 2006, EPA funded a sediment cleanup in the Pine River adjacent to the site.
Over 670,000 cubic yards of DDT-contaminated sediment were removed and disposed of
in an off-site approved landfill. DDT levels in fish have been reduced by over 98 percent,
but the state plans to keep the fish advisory in place until the entire site has been cleaned
up.
In the early 2000s, studies showed the slurry
wall and clay cap at the main plant site were
failing to keep contamination out of the river.
In response, EPA and the Michigan
Department of Environment, Great Lakes,
and Energy (EGLE) launched an RI and FS at
the main plant site. The resulting report
stated that soil and groundwater were
contaminated. EPA evaluated different
cleanup alternatives to address
contamination at the site and, in June 2006,
selected a remedy that included a
comprehensive cleanup of the main plant site
and a residential soil cleanup. During the
residential cleanup, EPA excavated and
disposed of 50,000 tons of contaminated soil
at an off-site landfill. EPA and Michigan EGLE
recently completed an additional RI that
focuses on the Pine River downstream of the
former chemical plant property.
EPA Region 5 requested assistance from the
"EPA Region 5 greatly appreciates the
Ecological Risk Assessment Support
Center (ERASC) assistance reviewing
the Velsicol Chemical Superfund site
ecological risk assessment. The ERASC
discovered some errors in the ecological
risk assessment and the comments
provided were helpful in getting the
document completed and also moving
this operable unit forward to the Record
of Decision stage. The Velsicol site is a
high priority fund-lead site for Region 5
with a large amount of community and
political interest. Ensuring documents
were accurate and follow EPA guidance
is extremely important and the ERASC
were helpful in achieving these goals."
Thomas Alcamo, Region 5 RPM, SEMD
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
46
-------
ERASC to evaluate the baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) that is part of the Draft
RI for OU 3 of the Superfund site. OU 3 includes the sediments in the Pine River and
floodplain soils from the St. Louis impoundment downstream to the Pine River's
confluence with the Chippewa River near Midland, Michigan (shown in Figure 3-30).
ERASC's technical evaluation proposed that a summary be presented of the hypotheses
formulated and the sources and chemicals producing the most risk to receptor groups.
The conclusions of the Baseline ERA in the Remedial Investigation set the stage for the
feasibility study and remedial action(s) to be taken (i.e., the final decision). Thus, it is
important that these were succinctly summarized. Overall, the ERASC review helped to
ensure that the most appropriate cleanup criteria and proposed remedies are developed in
the FS.
[FarmojrAB_urr^
mf&wW
Mlli Pond
IStTlTou ia Darn
felnit.flw.wl
[Derajtsit roam]
ffljT ¦
lliw ma rLpra>iYsi!5]
, r 'Wl
[Npafby,
^ feui Ai iTi
duE a i*Fiirfii'||C r.fra fflyya
Figure 3-30. Map showing the OUs at Velsicol Chemical Corporation Superfund
Site, St. Louis, Michigan
Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
47
-------
Human Health Toxicological Support for the L.A. Clarke & Son
Superfund Site
Site: L.A. Clarke & Son Superfund Site
Location: Region 3, Virginia
Center Support: STSC
In January 2021, EPA Region 3 requested support to evaluate the toxicity assessment of
naphthalene in groundwater, which was submitted as a part of the site-specific Human
Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) to be included in the RI/FS Report for the L.A. Clarke &
Son Superfund Site. The 44-acre L.A. Clarke & Son site is located in Spotsylvania County,
Virginia, about 4.5 miles southeast of Fredericksburg (Figure 3-31). Wood preservation
operations occurred at the site from 1937 to 1988, except for one inactive period from
April 1979 to June 1980. L.A. Clarke and Son, Inc. operated the wood treatment facility
on the property from 1937 to 1988. A subsidiary of Commonwealth Atlantic Properties,
Commonwealth Atlantic-Spotsylvania, Inc. (CASI), entered into a consent agreement with
EPA to clean up the site and is currently performing work at the site. In June 1986, the
site was added to the Superfund program's NPL, making it eligible for federal funding and
long-term cleanup.
The proposed HHRA, which was
provided on behalf of CASI for
the L.A. Clarke & Son Superfund
Site, proposed the use of a
human equivalent concentration
(HEC) of 3.3 milligram per cubic
meter (mg/m3) for naphthalene
as an alternative toxicity factor
for evaluating risk and making
risk management decisions for
the site. The proposed value was
identified from the peer-
reviewed literature. The STSC
provided support to Region 3 in
evaluating the toxicological
considerations on naphthalene
as a human carcinogen and
utilizing this toxicity value over
that derived by California's
Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment
(CalEPA OEHHA), which is the oral cancer toxicity value frequently used by EPA risk
assessors at Superfund sites. EPA currently has not derived cancer toxicity values for
"The team from the STSC provided precisely the
expert assistance the Region needed for a risk
issue destined to be problematic as naphthalene is
the most pervasive contaminant in groundwater at
the site. STSC's March 22, 2021 memo
summarizing its technical review and rebuttal of
CASI's assessment of risks associated with
naphthalene was included as part of Region 3's
replies to CASI's responses to EPA's comments on
a CASI's interim submittal: "Chapter 6-Human
Health Risk Assessment Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Report" that was
required by the Region. While the revised risk
assessment from CASI is pending, Region 3 is
confident that STSC's work very likely ended
debate over the issue of how human health risks
are to be characterized for naphthalene."
Stephen Tyahla, Region 3 Senior RPM, SEMD
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
48
-------
naphthalene exposure. The STSC developed a memo evaluating the peer reviewed
literature underlying the alternative toxicity value and provided technical comments on
assertions made by the CASI in the proposed human health risk assessment to assist the
Region in determining whether to adopt this toxicity value or not.
300
600
Sources: Esri. Dtg/talGlobe DeLorme. AND. Tele Atlas. First
American, UNEP-WCMC. GeoEye. Earthstar Geographies,
CNES/Airbus 0$, USOA, USGS AeroGRtD, IGN, the Gt$ User
Community, the 2015 FYR and the 2016 Remedial Design Work Plan
Legend
|_J Approximate Site Boundary Former Process Area T Outfalls
I Former Wastewater Impoundment Drainage Ditches Fence
Railroad
^ Skeo O
V ~ NORTH
L.A. Clarke and Son Superfund Site
City of Spotsylvania, Spotsylvania County, Virginia
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map arc approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding HPA's response actions at the
Site.
Figure 3-31. Map Showing the L.A. Clarke & Son Superfund Site
Source: EPA, Sixth Five Year Review Report for L.A. Clarke & Son Superfund Site, 2020
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
49
-------
4. Superfund and Technology Liaison Research Program
and Special Research Project Support
The STLs are the primary ORD technical liaisons between their assigned EPA regional
office(s) and ORD staff on issues related to contaminated sites. STLs work to ensure that
contaminated-site practitioners in EPA have access to technical support that can help
them make scientifically defensible decisions during site assessment and cleanup. TSCD's
STLs also coordinate an applied research program created to address regional science
priorities. The STLR Program began in 2011 and provides ORD resources to address high-
priority, Superfund-related regional science needs. Supported projects have taken many
forms, including applied research, conferences, workshops, and trainings.
STLs lead the program solicitation in their Region and are substantially involved in the
projects awarded to their Region throughout the project life-cycle. EPA Program Offices,
other federal agencies, states, local communities, and tribes are often included as
collaborators on STLR projects. In FY 2021 the TSCD funded six STLR projects.
Descriptions of each are provided below.
Additionally, the TSCs are occasionally asked to provide special research project support
for projects occurring within the ORD where their expertise and support will enhance or
enable the project to be completed. Some of these projects include areas outside of
hazardous waste like drinking water, clean air, and homeland security. The TSCs can
provide both in house and contractor expertise to address project needs.
Completion of the Septic Sensor Nitrogen Sensor Development/Testing
Region: 1 and 2, Special Research Project
Status: Completed
In early 2017, EPA, in partnership with The Nature Conservancy, USGS and others,
launched the "Advanced Septic System Nitrogen Sensor Challenge" to spur the
development and design of a low-cost nitrogen sensor package which could measure and
monitor the performance of advanced nitrogen removal septic systems. The partnership
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
team requested technical assistance from the SCMTSC in developing and implementing
the verification protocols and testing of the sensors.
Three sensor developers participated in the 1-month prescreening testing started in
December 2019. Dr. Qingzhi Zhu at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, New
York State Center for Clean Water Technology at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook,
New York developed a sensor that passed the 1-month pre-screening. This prototype
sensor, which can be seen in Fig ures 4-1 and 4-2, then underwent a 6-month field
study to verify compliance to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14034
standards and EPA's Test/Quality Assurance Plan for Advanced Septic System Nitrogen
Sensors.
The study began at the Massachusetts Alternative
Septic System Test Center (MASSTC) in November
2020 and ran until May 2021 with final review
completed and results reported, including issuance
of the ISO 14034 Verification Statement in
September of 2021. The study was monitored by
the SCMTSC Directors working with the
partnership team and through SCMTSC contract
support. The sensor was exposed to wastewater
effluent from standard, as well as advanced,
nitrogen-reducing septic systems. The sensor was
tested with effluent receiving various levels of
treatment, a simulated septic system failure, and
a septic system during a simulated power outage.
The testing successfully verified the long-term
performance of the new technology in the field. A
presentation to regional management on the
sensor and testing results was conducted on
February 17, 2022.
SCMTSC provided some additional funding for the
project and engaged key stakeholders in the
development of the project goals. SCMTSC
directed the testing and development of the
Test/Quality Assurance Plan, coordinated the
assemblage of the Technical Expert Panel, conducted oversight of the testing activities,
supplied standard materials for testing, provided guidance and support to the sensor
developers during the testing activities, and provided valuable input to reports and
document review. In an October 2021 press release for this project it was noted that,
"Stony Brook University has already begun to deploy prototype sensor units in
[innovative/alternative nitrogen-reducing septic] systems that are being installed on Cape
Cod and Long Island, with plans to deploy more in the future." Further details, and the
press release can be found at the link below.
https://www.epa.aov/newsreleases/septic-nitroaen-sensor-successfullv-completes-
environmental-performance-testina
Figure 4-1. Septic Sensor Test
Tank Field Measurements
This image shows personnel collecting field
measurements from a test tank.
Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Figure 4-2. Sensor Sampling Tube in Test Cell
This image shows the septic sensor sampling tube connected to the test tank.
Source: U.S. EPA, n.d.
IRepurposing a Commercial Off-the-Shelf Flight Simulator to Support
Aerial Surveillance Training
Region: 4 and 7, STLR
Status: Active
Aerial reconnaissance is conducted to spot | j
hazardous material and oil pollution, I j
including related debris, at large-scale or I
hard to reach locations and can cover I
hundreds to thousands of square miles in I
a matter of days. During flights over I
impacted areas, spotters take I -jjt^
observations and collect data about on- 5 j
the-ground hazards, including I I
photographs, Global Positioning System I I
(GPS) coordinates, spill characteristics I /
(level of damage and spill status), and I J
container characteristics (e.g., drum,
tank, cylinder, container). I his Figure 4-3. Examples of Hazardous Debris and Spills
information must be documented
within seconds of identifying the
features, which can be difficult to
identify (Figure 4-3). Experienced
This image shows examples of what a spotter would need to identify
and document during aerial reconnaissance. A: Dyed diesel spill; B:
Mussel bed; C: Wrack line debris field; D: Red tide (algae).
Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
spotters are rare due to the cost and complexity of real-world aerial reconnaissance
training, especially considering that there are currently no practice environments outside
of on-the-job experience.
This STLR project seeks to combine commercially available flight simulators, which
generate life-like visuals using real-world three-dimensional (3-D) imagery, with virtual
reality (VR), which provide visual and auditory sensory information to the user. An
example of this combined approach can be seen in Figure 4-4. By modifying the pre-
existing game code, the VR flight simulator can provide life-like simulations and
environments to the user, and thus could be used for training purposes. Within the
simulation, the trainee will be able to look up, down, left, and right in a full 360-degree
pattern while on board a flight over a series of generated visuals designed to represent
hazardous debris or an oil spill. The trainee will have a virtual laptop or mobile device
within the simulator, allowing the user to take notes while in flight.
This project is expected to provide a cost-effective and more in-depth training platform
compared to the existing traditional training methods. By implementing this training, the
STLR project could produce better trained spotters by using a "perfect practice"
environment and increase the pool of spotters to be used in emergency response
situations.
Figure 4-4. Microsoft Flight Simulator Screenshot
This image shows a screenshot from a flight simulator that uses real-world 3D imagery.
Source: EPA, n.d.
Identifying the Potential for Wetland Vegetation Management as a
Strategy to Decrease Methylmercury Production
Region: 3, 9, 10, and the Cincinnati and Corvallis ORD Laboratories, STLR
Status: Active
The primary concern with mercury (Hg) pollution is the transformation into
methylmercury (MeHg), which is the more toxic organic form of Hg that bioaccumulates in
fish and other biota. Because MeHg forms under anoxic conditions, wetlands are well
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
documented to be important zones of MeHg production due to the accumulation of
nutrients, organic matter, and microbial abundance.
At the Black Butte Mine Superfund Site, the primary risk driver is MeHg that has
bioaccumulated in fish, and previous reports have shown that the wetlands at this site are
important zones of MeHg production. Additionally, the wetlands at the Black Butte Mine
are dominated by reed canarygrass, which is an invasive species that often has negative
impacts on wetland biological diversity and can be seen in Figure 4-5. Due to the higher
density and growth rate of reed canarygrass compared to native wetland vegetation, it is
likely an important contributor to MeHg high production rates. Cottage Grove Reservoir,
which is designated as OU 3 at the Black
Butte Mine Superfund Site, is the target
area of this study since it is dominated
by canarygrass. This study aims to
determine if the removal of reed
canarygrass at the Black Butte Mine
Superfund Site and the subsequent
replacement with a lower density native
wetland plant species, like willows or
cattails, will result in the shift from
microbial sulfate reducers to nitrate
reducers, which do not methylate
mercury.
The results of this study will provide a
process-based understanding of the role
of wetland vegetation on MeHg
production, in turn allowing the
assessment of potential site remedial
action alternatives, as well as improve
wetland habitats.
¦ Development of Tools to Site-Specifically Monitor Exposure and Effects
of Lead in a Migratory Bird
Region: 10, STL.R
Status: Active
Pb and other heavy metals are COCs at hundreds of Superfund sites and present
significant risks to fish and wildlife throughout their life cycle, which complicates risk
assessments and monitoring programs. The purpose of this study is to monitor how site-
specific exposures to Pb can be understood for wildlife that may only visit a site
occasionally, such as migratory birds. Tundra swans (shown in Figure 4-6) are one of the
dominant migratory birds at the site and the focal species for the study.
Figure 4-5. Black Butte Mine Superfund Site,
Oregon - OU 3 Wetlands
This image shows the dense homogenous groundcover of invasive
reed canary grass at the Black Butte Mine Superfund Site during
winter.
Source: EPA, n.d.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
54
-------
This project aims to non-lethally
and site-specificaily address
changes in exposure and risk to
Pb in waterfowl by establishing a
critical baseline dataset against
which future remedy
effectiveness can be tracked
over time. The project will
demonstrate how to disentangle
proximate from distal (i.e., local
vs far-off) Pb exposure sources
in waterfowl, which can serve as
a model for other site managers
and the broader scientific
community and can be
implemented on other
contaminated sites. Three grants
were funded the research for this project. Each grant focuses on a unique aspect of the Pb
contamination which ranges from understanding the environmental variables impacting Pb
speciation and mobility, to Pb exposure to swans and monitoring effectiveness of remedial
actions, to the potential for sediment amendments to decrease Pb toxicity. A summary of
results is provided within Section 3.2.
Figure 4-6. Tundra Swans in the Schlepp Wetlands
in Coeur d'Alene River
Source: EPA, Coeur d'Alene Basin Cleanup Factsheet, March 2022
¦ Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Practical Groundwater
Science Guides for Regional Practitioners
Regions: 2, 3 and 9, and Ada Laboratory, STLR
Status: Active
PFAS include thousands of industrial chemicals that are used in many consumer products
and industrial and manufacturing applications. The products, and the manufacturing,
processing, and use of products containing PFAS are some of the contributors to releases
into the air, soil, and water. PFAS usage has contaminated Superfund and RCRA sites,
which has led to RIs and subsequent conceptual site models, however, the understanding
of the fate and transport of subsurface PFAS is still being researched and developed.
The research team seeks to assist EPA technical staff and RPMs in understanding the
latest ORD research in PFAS fate and transport by translating and communicating the
research in condensed and concise practitioners' guides that will highlight the state-of-
the-science on key topics. The key topics include how surfactant properties of PFAS
impact fate and transport, predicting groundwater vulnerabilities from PFAS-impacted
soils, and groundwater sampling for PFAS. This project should help personnel understand
the unique characteristics of PFAS, including how they differ from more traditional
contaminants at Superfund sites, therefore resulting in informed site assessment and
remediation decisions and consistent sampling approaches and development of fate and
transport conceptual site models.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
IOperationalizing Ecosystem Goods and Services Endpoints and
Assessment Tools for Supporting Risk Assessments and Contaminated
Site Cleanups
Region: 2, STLR
Status: Active
Ecological risk assessments are generally performed in a phased approach, first using a
screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA), followed by a BERA. The SLERA uses
conservative site-specific exposure scenarios to evaluate adverse ecological effects to
ecological resources, while the BERA uses site-specific scenarios and physical, chemical,
and biological data to evaluate the exposure effects of a stressor to ecological resources.
Results of the SLERA are used to determine if the ecological threats at a site are
negligible, or if a more detailed BERA is required to be performed.
The EPA and ORD have identified that the traditional ecological risk assessment process
has related ecosystem services topics and seeks to implement these existing ecosystem
services tools into the ecological risk assessment process. Incorporation of the ecosystem
services endpoints into the ecological risk assessment process could aid in informing
remediation decisions, monitoring, and further reviews, adding to the toolbox of site
managers, technical support, and stakeholders.
Utilizing the crosswalk between ecosystem services tools and ecological risk assessments
has the potential to be an invaluable advancement for ecological risk assessment science,
aiding in the development of new ecosystem services-based decision support tools and
potentially allowing risk assessors to better understand ecosystem services considerations
in risk assessments at Superfund sites.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
56
-------
5. Technology Transfer
The TSCD regularly shares knowledge through presentations, technical reports, journal
articles, webinars, web pages, models, engineering issue papers, and other scientific
communication products (see Figure 5-1). This section includes a sampling of technology
transfer products completed in FY 2021.
FY 2021 Technology
Transfer Products
Presentations
Journals and Book Chapters
IRIS and Other Assessment
Documents
Published Reports
Figure 5-1. FY 2021 Technology Transfer Products
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Presentations
¦ Waste Management - BOSC. Tolaymat, T., C. Acheson, K. Scheckel, P. Potter, M. Mills,
and T. Speth. BOSC Executive Committee PFAS Meeting, Washington, DC, September
29 - 30, 2021.
¦ Enhanced Aquifer Recharge fEARI Prolect. Ross, R., D. Beak, J. Fields, T. Halihan, and
G. Sewell. 6th Annual Oka' Institute Sustainability Conference, Virtual, Oklahoma,
September 21 - 22, 2021.
¦ Consideration of Ecosystem Services at Cleanup Sites: A Retrospective Analysis and
Ongoing EPA/ORD Research. Kravitz, M., M. Harwell, J. Hoffman, and T. Newcomer-
Johnson. National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration (NCER) 2021, Portland,
Oregon, August 02 - 05, 2021.
¦ Simulating Flood-Induced Contaminated Soil and Sediment Transport in Woodbridoe.
NJ. Shabani, A., S. Woznicki, M. Mehaffey, M. Ramirez, L. Drumm, E. Signor, R.
Vargas, D. Cutt, and P. Whung. The slides are for NJ Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) Collaborator, Trenton, New Jersey, August 01, 2021.
¦ Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subcommittee fSHO Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) Topic 1 Review of Research Areas 2, 3, 4 and Lead. Wilkin, Rick,
A. Williams, V. Zartarian, L. Wyatt, N. Tulve, K. Bradham, R. Devereux, D. Cutt, F.
Barnett, R. Ludwig, E. Barth, T. Luxton, B. Butler, F. Kremer, A. Hall, B. Schumacher,
AND J. Zimmerman. SHC BOSC Topic 1 Review of Research Areas 2, 3, 4 and Lead.
SHC Topic 1 BOSC SC Meeting, N/A (Virtual), N/A (Virtual), March 30 - April 01, 2021.
¦ Evaluation of the Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™ at Elizabeth Mine. Vermont.
Butler, B. AND E. Hathaway. Clu-In Mining Webinar Series, March 16, 2021.
¦ Congress Run: A Platform for GW-surface water fSWI Methods Testing & Field Class
Development. Ford, R., L. Brase, Barb Butler, S. Jacobs, Jenny Goetz, and B. Lien.
Presented at Congress Run Project Meeting with External Partners, Cincinnati, Ohio,
February 10, 2021.
¦ Overview of Preliminary Congress Run Hvdrologic Data. Brase, L. and R. Ford.
Congress Run Project Meeting with External Partners, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 10,
2021.
¦ Evaluating Urban Background Metal Concentration Clusters with Bavesian Networks:
Southeastern Urban Centers in EPA Region 4. Carriger, John F., Robert G. Ford, T.
Frederick, S. Chan, and Y. Fung. SETAC North America 41st Annual Meeting, Virtual,
November 15 - 19, 2020.
¦ Use of Biochar Amendments to Mitigate Soil Pb Toxicity to People and Waterfowl.
Plunkett, S., Todd P Luxton, Chris S Eckley, and Mark G Johnson. American Society of
Agronomy - Crop Science Society of America - Soil Science Society of America
International Annual Meeting, Virtual, November 08-11, 2020.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
58
-------
Published Reports
¦ Advancing Pb Exposure and Biokinetic Modeling for U.S. EPA Regulatory Decisions and
Site Assessments Using Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex Superfund Site
Data. U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-21/017F, 2021.
¦ EPA ORD Technical Support at Contaminated Sites Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Annual
Report. Bronstein, K., D. Gwisdalla, F. Barnett, R. Ross, M. Kravitz, and D. Shams.
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-21/149,
2021.
¦ Review of Peer-Reviewed Documents on Treatment Technologies Used at Mining
Waste Sites. Mahoney, M., B. Butler, and S. Solutions, Inc. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 542-R-20-002, 2021.
Journals and Book Chapters
¦ Effectiveness of Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entrv Systems to Remove Per-and-Polv-
fluoroalkvl Substances from Drinking Water. Patterson, C., J. Burkhardt, D. Schupp, E.
Krishnan, S. Dyment, S. Merritt, L. Zintek, and D. Kleinmaier. Edition 1st, Chapter 10,
Forever Chemicals: Environmental, Economic, and Social Equity Concerns with PFAS
in the Environment. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, 211-235, (2021).
¦ Field, Laboratory and Modeling Evidence for Strong Attenuation of a Chromium (Cr)
fvn Plume in a Mudstone Aguifer Due to Matrix Diffusion and Reaction Processes.
Chapman, S., B. Parker, T. Al, R. Wilkin, D. Cutt, K. Mishkin, and S. Nelson. Soil
Systems. MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland, 5(1):5010018, (2021).
¦ High Lead Bioavailability of Indoor Dust Contaminated with Paint Lead Species.
Sowers, T., C. Nelson, G. Diamond, M. Blackmon, M. Jerden, A. Kirby, M. Noerpel, K.
Scheckel, D. Thomas, and K. Bradham. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY.
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 55(1):402-411, (2021).
¦ Insights into Mercury Source Identification and Bioaccumulation Using Stable Isotope
Approaches in the Hannibal Pool of the Ohio River. USA. Janssen, S., K. Patnode,
Bruce R Pluta, and D. Krabbenhoft. Integrated Environmental Assessment and
Management. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS, 17(l):233-242, (2021).
¦ Microbial Response to Designer Biochar and Compost Treatments for Mining Impacted
Soils. Ducey, T., J. Novak, G. Sigua, J. Ippolito, H. Rushmiller, D. Watts, K. Trippe, K.
Spokas, K. Stone, and M. Johnson. Biochar Journal. Ithaka Institute for Carbon
Intelligence, Arbaz, Switzerland, 3:299-314, (2021).
¦ Spreadsheet Tools for Quantifying Seepage Flux Across the GW-SW Interface. Ford,
Robert G., Bob K. Lien, Steven D. Acree, and Randall R. Ross. WATER RESOURCES
RESEARCH. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 57(l):e2019WR026232,
(2021).
¦ Supporting contaminated sites management with Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis:
Demonstration of a regulation-consistent approach. Cinelli, M., Michael A. Gonzalez,
R. Ford, J. McKernan, S. Corrente, M. Kadziriski, and R. Sfowiriski. JOURNAL OF
CLEANER PRODUCTION. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, 316:128347, (2021).
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
59
-------
IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) and Other
Assessment Documents
¦ Human Health Toxicity Values for Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid and Related
Compound Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate. U.S. EPA. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/345F, 2021.
¦ Integrated Risk Information System (TRIS1 Assessment Plan for Inhalation Exposure
to Vanadium and Compounds (Scoping and Problem Formulation Materials'). U.S. EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-21/077, 2021.
¦ Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Calcium Salts of Inorganic Phosphates.
U.S. EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/690/R-
21/009F, 2021.
¦ Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Trans-Crotonaldehvde. U.S. EPA. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/690/R-21/001F, 2021.
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
60
-------
6. Conclusions & Contact Information
The technical support requests
and resulting actions
summarized in this report are
a select sample of those
undertaken by the ORD TSCD
in FY 2021. Several of these
investigations have generated
substantial results, while
others are working toward
that end. The highlighted
support efforts provide insight
into the unique role that the
TSCs and STLs play as a
bridge between environmental
restoration efforts and
innovative research in ORD.
Through their interdisciplinary
staff, the TSCs bring creative
thinking to life by applying
innovative research in real-
world scenarios. In addition to
the site-specific solutions
delivered, these innovations
have the potential to produce
long-lasting dividends,
improve environmental
conditions, and, ultimately,
provide for safer and healthier
communities. More
information can be obtained
through the EPA website, TSC
Directors, and STLs from each
EPA Region (see Table 6 -1).
Table 6-1. Contacts for Obtaining Technical
Support Through the STLs and TSCs
Links to
ORD TSC
Websites
ORD TSC
Directors
Superfund
Technology
Liaisons
EPA TSCs Main Paae
ERASC
SCMTSC
GWTSC STSC
ERASC
Michael Kravitz
ETSC
David Gwisdalla
GWTSC
Randall Ross
SCMTSC
Felicia Barnett
STSC
Dahnish Shams
Region 1
Jonathan Essoka (Actina)
Region 2
Diana Cutt
Region 3
Jonathan Essoka
Region 4
Felicia Barnett
Region 5
Stephen Dvment f Actina)
Region 6
Terrv Burton
Region 7
Robert Weber
Region 8
Steohen Dvment
Region 9
Matthew Small fActina) &
Robert Weber fActina)
Region 10
Diana Cutt fActina)
HI
Guam
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
1 EPA Region
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
61
-------
Appendix A. FY 2021 Support Projects
Table A-l. Site-specific Projects Supported by the TSCs in FY 2021.
Some projects are duplicated due to other technical support provided by a different TSC. Follow-on requests for
technical support at the same site by the same TSC(s) are annotated with an asterisk.
Support Type
Site Name
Region
State
Lead TSC
Assessing and
Treating
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center (USDOT)
2
NJ
GWTSC
Willow Grove*
3
PA
SCMTSC
Emerging and
Persistent
Lawrence Todtz Farm*
7
IA
ETSC
Contaminants
Ellsworth Air Force Base
8
SD
ETSC
PCB Congener-specific Analysis
Other
N/A
ERASC
Burnt Fly Bog
2
NJ
ETSC
Sherwin Williams/Hilliard's Creek
2
NJ
ETSC
Big River Mine/St. Joe Minerals
Corp/Southwest Jefferson
Mining/Washington County Lead District
7
MO
ETSC/
GWTSC
Madison County Mines
7
MO
ETSC
Characterization
and
Remediation
Oga I la la Groundwater Contamination
7
NE
GWTSC
Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock
8
CO
ETSC
Innovations at
Mining Sites
Motorola, Inc. - 52nd Street Plant -
Joray Facility
9
AZ
GWTSC
Ballard Mine Site
10
ID
ETSC
Bunker Hill - LB Channel Remediation
10
ID
ETSC
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical
Complex
10
ID
ETSC
Black Butte Mine
10
OR
ETSC
L.A. Clarke & Son
3
VA
STSC
Foley Mills Paper Plant NPDES
4
FL
SCMTSC
Fisher Calo
5
IN
SCMTSC
Preventing
Velsicol Chemical Corporation Superfund
Site
5
MI
ERASC
Adverse Human
Health and
Johnston Atoll (RCRA Corrective Action)
9
N/A
ERASC
Ecological Risk
Impacts
Use of Allometric Scaling of Toxicity
Measurements in Ecological Risk
Assessments
Other
MA
ERASC
Tittabawassee River
5
MI
STSC
Vienna Wells
7
MO
SCMTSC
Westlake Landfill OU 1
7
MO
SCMTSC
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
62
-------
Support Type
Site Name
Region
State
Lead TSC
Navajo Nation Uranium Mines*
9
NM
SCMTSC
Dudley Laundry
7
NE
SCMTSC
Navajo Forest Products Industry
9
NM
SCMTSC
Havertown PCP
3
PA
SCMTSC
Fort Devens
1
MA
ETSC
Fort Devens
1
MA
GWTSC/
ETSC
Baird & McGuire
1
MA
GWTSC
Olin Chemical
1
MA
ETSC
American Cyanamid Co.
2
NJ
GWTSC
Quanta Resources
2
NJ
ETSC
Historic Potteries
2
NJ
GWTSC
GCL Tie and Treating
2
NY
GWTSC
Hooker S-Area
2
NY
GWTSC
Kinder Morgan/NorthPoint*
2
NY
GWTSC
Solvent Savers
2
NY
GWTSC
Puerto Rico ET Cover Guidance
2
PR
ETSC
Fibers Public Supply Wells
2
PR
ETSC
HOVENSA
2
U.S. V.I.
GWTSC
Central Chemical
3
MD
SCMTSC
E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co./South
Landfill PRB
3
DE
GWTSC
Remedy
Evaluation and
State of Pennsylvania Wastewater
Treatment Support
3
PA
ETSC
Innovations
Allegany Ballistics Lab
3
WV
ETSC
LCP Chemicals Brunswick
4
GA
ETSC
Mathis Brothers Landfill
4
GA
ETSC
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. - Columbus
4
MS
ETSC
Cavenham Forest Industries*
4
MS
SCMTSC
Spirit Lake Mercury Treatment
5
MN
ETSC
ChemDyne MNA
5
OH
GWTSC
Laskin Poplar
5
OH
ETSC
Chemical Company
6
LA
ETSC
Chemplex Co.
7
IA
ETSC
Armour Road Site
7
MO
SWTSC
Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals
Corporation Site - Doe Run Tailings Pile
Area
7
MO
ETSC
Conservation Chemical Company
7
MO
ETSC
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits
7
MO
GWTSC
Westlake Landfill
7
MO
ETSC
Ethanol Production Facility # 84069
7
NE
ETSC
Hastings Groundwater Contamination -
Second Street Subsite*
7
NE
ETSC/
GWTSC
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
-------
Support Type
Site Name
Region
State
Lead TSC
Parkview
7
NE
GWTSC
Carriage Cleaners*
7
NE
GWTSC
Evoqua
9
AZ
SCMTSC
McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.
9
CA
ETSC
Montrose Chemical Corporation
9
CA
GWTSC
Bunker Hill - Lane Marsh
10
WA
SCMTSC
Palermo Well Field*
10
WA
GWTSC
Sharon Steel Fairmont Coke Works
3
WV
ETSC
Septic Sensor Challenge
1 & 2
N/A
SCMTSC
Olin*
1
MA
SCMTSC
MassDEP TCE Modeling
1
MA
GWTSC
American Cyanamid
2
NJ
ETSC/
SCMTSC
American Cyanamid
2
NJ
SCMTSC
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliard's Creek
2
NJ
GWTSC
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
2
NY
ERASC
Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Area*
2
PR
SCMTSC
Chemical Recovery Systems
5
OH
SCMTSC
Chemours Pompton Lakes*
2
NJ
SCMTSC
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
4
FL
ETSC
Lee's Lane
4
KY
ETSC
Site Assessment
Support and
Clinch River
4
TN
GWTSC
Trottner Iron and Metal
6
TX
ETSC
Site
Findett Corp.
7
MO
GWTSC
Characterization
Innovations
Lake Road Warehouse Site
7
MO
SCMTSC
Southwest Jefferson County Mining and
Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals
Corporation Sites
7
MO
SCMTSC
Vienna Wells
7
MO
ETSC
Washington County Lead District -
Furnace Creek, Old Mines, Potosi, and
Richwoods Sites*
7
MO
SCMTSC
West Road Warehouse
7
MO
ETSC
Westlake Landfill OU 1
7
MO
SCMTSC
Westlake Landfill OU 3
7
MO
GWTSC/
SCMTSC
Colorado Smelter OU 2
8
CO
GWTSC/
ETSC
Blue Ledge Mine
9
CA
GWTSC/
ETSC
FY 2021 Technical Support Coordination Division Annual Report
64
-------
svEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED
STANDARD POSTAGE
& FEES PAID EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and
Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |